User login
-
Rituximab and COVID-19 vaccines: Studies begin to answer key questions
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
DKMS: Small nonprofit to world’s largest stem cell donor registry
When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.
“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.
In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.
“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.
Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).
In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”
From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.
Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
World’s largest registry
“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,
Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.
Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
Global partners
DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.
“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.
The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
Pandemic affects donations
But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.
Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.
“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.
However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.
“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
Workforce and clinical problems
Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.
“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.
Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.
“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.
In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.
“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.
To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.
The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
‘Every patient saved’
The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.
DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.
In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.
The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.
“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”
“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.
Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.
When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.
“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.
In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.
“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.
Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).
In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”
From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.
Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
World’s largest registry
“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,
Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.
Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
Global partners
DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.
“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.
The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
Pandemic affects donations
But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.
Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.
“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.
However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.
“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
Workforce and clinical problems
Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.
“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.
Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.
“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.
In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.
“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.
To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.
The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
‘Every patient saved’
The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.
DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.
In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.
The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.
“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”
“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.
Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.
When Mechtild Harf was diagnosed with acute leukemia in 1990, physicians told her and her husband Peter that a bone marrow transplant was her best hope for survival. Back then, her native Germany had only 3,000 registered donors, and none was a match.
“My dad just went crazy, you know, to save his wife,” recalled Katharina Harf, who was a young teen at the time of her mother’s diagnosis.
In the course of 1 year, the Harfs recruited more than 68,000 potential bone marrow donors, but their heroic efforts couldn’t save Mechtild.
“She unfortunately didn’t make it. She died because of leukemia,” Katharina said.
Although Mechtild Harf did not survive, her legacy lives on in the bone marrow and stem cell donor recruitment organization DKMS (Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei, or German Bone Marrow Donor Center).
In May of 1991, Peter Harf and Gerhard Ehninger, MD, the hematologist who treated Mechtild, founded DKMS with the mission, as its website states, “to provide as many blood cancer patients as possible with a second chance at life.”
From its German roots, the nonprofit organization has extended its mission to the United States (where it was initially known as Delete Blood Cancer DKMS), Poland, the United Kingdom, Chile, and in 2021, to South Africa.
Three decades after her mother’s death, Katharina Harf serves as Executive Chairwoman of DKMS U.S., based in New York.
World’s largest registry
“DKMS has the largest number of unrelated donors of any organization in the world,” noted Richard E. Champlin, MD, chair of the department of stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
“In a large fraction of our donor searches, we find matches that are in the DKMS registry,” he said in an interview,
Alexander Schmidt, MD, PhD, global chief medical officer for DKMS, said that approximately 25% of all registered donors worldwide were recruited by his organization, and 39% of all unrelated donor transplants are made with peripheral blood stem cell or bone marrow products, donated by volunteers who are recruited by DKMS.
Since its founding, DKMS has registered 7.1 million potential donors in Germany, who made a total of 80,000 stem cell donations. DKMS U.S., which began operations in 2004, has registered 1.1 million donors and enabled 4,700 donations.
Global partners
DKMS partners with donor centers and recruitment organizations in each country where it operates. In the United States, DKMS works with the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and its “Be The Match” donor registry.
“DKMS donors, both those from DKMS in Germany and those from DKMS in the United States are also listed in the NMDP registry, to make it easier for US search coordinators to accept these donors,” Dr. Schmidt explained in an interview.
The international cooperation and coordination makes it possible for a donor in the UK, for example, to save a life of a patient in Germany, the U.S., Chile, India, or many other parts of the world – anywhere that can be reached in time for a patient in need to receive a stem cell donation.
Pandemic affects donations
But, as with just about every aspect of life, the COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for recruiters, donor centers, and stem cell transplant centers.
Dr. Schmidt said that decline in donations during the pandemic was less severe than initially feared, with a decrease of just 3.5% in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year of 2019. In contrast, though, the average annual growth rate for donations prior to the pandemic was about 4%.
“Nevertheless, at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, for a few days things looked quite terrible, because all the borders were closed and flights were canceled, and about 50% of all stem cell products go abroad, and between 20% and 25% go intercontinental,” Dr. Schmidt said.
However, close cooperation and coordination between donor centers and national health authorities soon resolved the problem and helped insure that the flow of life-saving donations could continue with minimal disruption, he noted.
“I don’t think we had any product that could not be delivered at the end of the day, due to the pandemic,” he told this news organization.
Workforce and clinical problems
Although the flow of donations within and between nations has continued, the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound negative effects on transplant centers, particularly during the wave of infections caused by the Omicron variant, according to a transplant expert.
“With this most recent strain and how transmissible it is, what we’re dealing with is mass workforce shortages,” said Yi-Bin Chen, MD, director of the bone marrow transplant program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
“On top of a short-staffed hospital, you then take a very transmissible variant and deplete it even more due to the need to quarantine,” he said in an interview.
Both Dr. Champlin and Dr. Chen said that on-again, off-again pandemic travel bans and donor illnesses have necessitated first obtaining products and cryopreserving them before starting the recipient on a conditioning regimen for the transplant.
“The problem is that, while you can preserve peripheral blood stem cells pretty reliably, cryopreserving bone marrow is a bit more difficult,” Dr. Chen said.
In addition, evidence from recent studies comparing stem cell sources suggest that outcomes are less good with cryopreserved products than with fresh products, and with peripheral blood stem cells compared with bone marrow.
“But you’ve got to make do. A transplant with a cryopreserved product is better than no transplant,” Dr. Chen said.
To make things even more frustrating, as the pandemic waxed and waned throughout 2020 and 2021, the recommendations from donor centers seesawed between using fresh or cryopreserved product, making it difficult to plan a transplant for an individual patient.
The Omicron wave has also resulted in a much higher rate of donor dropout than anticipated, making it that much harder to schedule a transplant, Dr. Chen noted.
‘Every patient saved’
The pandemic will eventually subside, however, while the need for stem cell transplantation to treat hematologic malignancies will continue.
DKMS recently launched special aid programs to improve access to stem cell transplants in developing nations by offering financial support, free HLA typing, and other services.
In addition to its core mission of recruiting donors, DKMS is dedicated to improving the quality and efficiency of stem cell transplants. For example, in 2017 scientists in DKMS’ Life Science Lab created an antibody test for donor cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, using a simple buccal swab rather than a more invasive blood sample. CMV infections can compromise the integrity of stem cell grafts and could be fatal to immunocompromised transplant recipients.
The last word goes to Mechtild Harf’s daughter Katharina.
“My big dream is that every patient will be saved from blood cancer,” she said in a video posted on the DKMS website. “When they get sick, we have a solution for them, whether it’s because they need a donor, with research, building hospitals, providing them with the best medical care we can. I will just keep fighting and keep spreading the word, recruiting donors, raising money – all the things that it takes for us to delete blood cancer.”
“I have to believe that this dream will come true because otherwise, why dream, right?” she said.
Dr. Champlin was the recipient of a Mechtild Harf Science Award and is a member of the board of DKMS U.S. Dr. Schmidt is employed by DKMS. Dr. Chen reported having no relevant disclosures.
Five things you should know about ‘free’ at-home COVID tests
Americans keep hearing that it is important to test frequently for COVID-19 at home. But just try to find an “at-home” rapid COVID test in a store and at a price that makes frequent tests affordable.
Testing, as well as mask-wearing, is an important measure if the country ever hopes to beat COVID, restore normal routines and get the economy running efficiently. To get Americans cheaper tests, the federal government now plans to have insurance companies pay for them.
You can either get one without any out-of-pocket expense from retail pharmacies that are part of an insurance company’s network or buy it at any store and get reimbursed by the insurer.
Congress said private insurers must cover all COVID testing and any associated medical services when it passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The have-insurance-pay-for-it solution has been used frequently through the pandemic. Insurance companies have been told to pay for polymerase chain reaction tests, COVID treatments and the administration of vaccines. (Taxpayers are paying for the cost of the vaccines themselves.) It appears to be an elegant solution for a politician because it looks free and isn’t using taxpayer money.
1. Are the tests really free?
Well, no. As many an economist will tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab. Initially, the insurance companies bear the cost. Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF who studies the Affordable Care Act and private insurers, said the total bill could amount to billions of dollars. Exactly how much depends on “how easy it is to get them, and how many will be reimbursed,” she said.
2. Will the insurance company just swallow those imposed costs?
If companies draw from the time-tested insurance giants’ playbook, they’ll pass along those costs to customers. “This will put upward pressure on premiums,” said Emily Gee, vice president and coordinator for health policy at the Center for American Progress.
Major insurance companies like Cigna, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna did not respond to requests to discuss this issue.
3. If that’s the case, why haven’t I been hit with higher premiums already?
Insurance companies had the chance last year to raise premiums but, mostly, they did not.
Why? Perhaps because insurers have so far made so much money during the pandemic they didn’t need to. For example, the industry’s profits in 2020 increased 41% to $31 billion from $22 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC said the industry has continued its “tremendous growth trend” that started before COVID emerged. Companies will be reporting 2021 results soon.
The reason behind these profits is clear. You were paying premiums based on projections your insurance company made about how much health care consumers would use that year. Because people stayed home, had fewer accidents, postponed surgeries and often avoided going to visit the doctor or the hospital, insurers paid out less. They rebated some of their earnings back to customers, but they pocketed a lot more.
As the companies’ actuaries work on predicting 2023 expenditures, premiums could go up if they foresee more claims and expenses. Paying for millions of rapid tests is something they would include in their calculations.
4. Regardless of my premiums, will the tests cost me money directly?
It’s quite possible. If your insurance company doesn’t have an arrangement with a retailer where you can simply pick up your allotted tests, you’ll have to pay for them – at whatever price the store sets. If that’s the case, you’ll need to fill out a form to request a reimbursement from the insurance company. How many times have you lost receipts or just plain neglected to mail in for rebates on something you bought? A lot, right?
Here’s another thing: The reimbursement is set at $12 per test. If you pay $30 for a test – and that is not unheard of – your insurer is only on the hook for $12. You eat the $18.
And by the way, people on Medicare will have to pay for their tests themselves. People who get their health care covered by Medicaid can obtain free test kits at community centers.
A few free tests are supposed to arrive at every American home via the U.S. Postal Service. And the Biden administration has activated a website where Americans can order free tests from a cache of a billion the federal government ordered.
5. Will this help bring down the costs of at-home tests and make them easier to find?
The free COVID tests are unlikely to have much immediate impact on general cost and availability. You will still need to search for them. The federal measures likely will stimulate the demand for tests, which in the short term may make them harder to find.
But the demand, and some government guarantees to manufacturers, may induce test makers to make more of them faster. The increased competition and supply theoretically could bring down the price. There is certainly room for prices to decline since the wholesale cost of the test is between $5 and $7, analysts estimate. “It’s a big step in the right direction,” Ms. Gee said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Americans keep hearing that it is important to test frequently for COVID-19 at home. But just try to find an “at-home” rapid COVID test in a store and at a price that makes frequent tests affordable.
Testing, as well as mask-wearing, is an important measure if the country ever hopes to beat COVID, restore normal routines and get the economy running efficiently. To get Americans cheaper tests, the federal government now plans to have insurance companies pay for them.
You can either get one without any out-of-pocket expense from retail pharmacies that are part of an insurance company’s network or buy it at any store and get reimbursed by the insurer.
Congress said private insurers must cover all COVID testing and any associated medical services when it passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The have-insurance-pay-for-it solution has been used frequently through the pandemic. Insurance companies have been told to pay for polymerase chain reaction tests, COVID treatments and the administration of vaccines. (Taxpayers are paying for the cost of the vaccines themselves.) It appears to be an elegant solution for a politician because it looks free and isn’t using taxpayer money.
1. Are the tests really free?
Well, no. As many an economist will tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab. Initially, the insurance companies bear the cost. Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF who studies the Affordable Care Act and private insurers, said the total bill could amount to billions of dollars. Exactly how much depends on “how easy it is to get them, and how many will be reimbursed,” she said.
2. Will the insurance company just swallow those imposed costs?
If companies draw from the time-tested insurance giants’ playbook, they’ll pass along those costs to customers. “This will put upward pressure on premiums,” said Emily Gee, vice president and coordinator for health policy at the Center for American Progress.
Major insurance companies like Cigna, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna did not respond to requests to discuss this issue.
3. If that’s the case, why haven’t I been hit with higher premiums already?
Insurance companies had the chance last year to raise premiums but, mostly, they did not.
Why? Perhaps because insurers have so far made so much money during the pandemic they didn’t need to. For example, the industry’s profits in 2020 increased 41% to $31 billion from $22 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC said the industry has continued its “tremendous growth trend” that started before COVID emerged. Companies will be reporting 2021 results soon.
The reason behind these profits is clear. You were paying premiums based on projections your insurance company made about how much health care consumers would use that year. Because people stayed home, had fewer accidents, postponed surgeries and often avoided going to visit the doctor or the hospital, insurers paid out less. They rebated some of their earnings back to customers, but they pocketed a lot more.
As the companies’ actuaries work on predicting 2023 expenditures, premiums could go up if they foresee more claims and expenses. Paying for millions of rapid tests is something they would include in their calculations.
4. Regardless of my premiums, will the tests cost me money directly?
It’s quite possible. If your insurance company doesn’t have an arrangement with a retailer where you can simply pick up your allotted tests, you’ll have to pay for them – at whatever price the store sets. If that’s the case, you’ll need to fill out a form to request a reimbursement from the insurance company. How many times have you lost receipts or just plain neglected to mail in for rebates on something you bought? A lot, right?
Here’s another thing: The reimbursement is set at $12 per test. If you pay $30 for a test – and that is not unheard of – your insurer is only on the hook for $12. You eat the $18.
And by the way, people on Medicare will have to pay for their tests themselves. People who get their health care covered by Medicaid can obtain free test kits at community centers.
A few free tests are supposed to arrive at every American home via the U.S. Postal Service. And the Biden administration has activated a website where Americans can order free tests from a cache of a billion the federal government ordered.
5. Will this help bring down the costs of at-home tests and make them easier to find?
The free COVID tests are unlikely to have much immediate impact on general cost and availability. You will still need to search for them. The federal measures likely will stimulate the demand for tests, which in the short term may make them harder to find.
But the demand, and some government guarantees to manufacturers, may induce test makers to make more of them faster. The increased competition and supply theoretically could bring down the price. There is certainly room for prices to decline since the wholesale cost of the test is between $5 and $7, analysts estimate. “It’s a big step in the right direction,” Ms. Gee said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Americans keep hearing that it is important to test frequently for COVID-19 at home. But just try to find an “at-home” rapid COVID test in a store and at a price that makes frequent tests affordable.
Testing, as well as mask-wearing, is an important measure if the country ever hopes to beat COVID, restore normal routines and get the economy running efficiently. To get Americans cheaper tests, the federal government now plans to have insurance companies pay for them.
You can either get one without any out-of-pocket expense from retail pharmacies that are part of an insurance company’s network or buy it at any store and get reimbursed by the insurer.
Congress said private insurers must cover all COVID testing and any associated medical services when it passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act. The have-insurance-pay-for-it solution has been used frequently through the pandemic. Insurance companies have been told to pay for polymerase chain reaction tests, COVID treatments and the administration of vaccines. (Taxpayers are paying for the cost of the vaccines themselves.) It appears to be an elegant solution for a politician because it looks free and isn’t using taxpayer money.
1. Are the tests really free?
Well, no. As many an economist will tell you, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab. Initially, the insurance companies bear the cost. Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF who studies the Affordable Care Act and private insurers, said the total bill could amount to billions of dollars. Exactly how much depends on “how easy it is to get them, and how many will be reimbursed,” she said.
2. Will the insurance company just swallow those imposed costs?
If companies draw from the time-tested insurance giants’ playbook, they’ll pass along those costs to customers. “This will put upward pressure on premiums,” said Emily Gee, vice president and coordinator for health policy at the Center for American Progress.
Major insurance companies like Cigna, Anthem, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna did not respond to requests to discuss this issue.
3. If that’s the case, why haven’t I been hit with higher premiums already?
Insurance companies had the chance last year to raise premiums but, mostly, they did not.
Why? Perhaps because insurers have so far made so much money during the pandemic they didn’t need to. For example, the industry’s profits in 2020 increased 41% to $31 billion from $22 billion, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC said the industry has continued its “tremendous growth trend” that started before COVID emerged. Companies will be reporting 2021 results soon.
The reason behind these profits is clear. You were paying premiums based on projections your insurance company made about how much health care consumers would use that year. Because people stayed home, had fewer accidents, postponed surgeries and often avoided going to visit the doctor or the hospital, insurers paid out less. They rebated some of their earnings back to customers, but they pocketed a lot more.
As the companies’ actuaries work on predicting 2023 expenditures, premiums could go up if they foresee more claims and expenses. Paying for millions of rapid tests is something they would include in their calculations.
4. Regardless of my premiums, will the tests cost me money directly?
It’s quite possible. If your insurance company doesn’t have an arrangement with a retailer where you can simply pick up your allotted tests, you’ll have to pay for them – at whatever price the store sets. If that’s the case, you’ll need to fill out a form to request a reimbursement from the insurance company. How many times have you lost receipts or just plain neglected to mail in for rebates on something you bought? A lot, right?
Here’s another thing: The reimbursement is set at $12 per test. If you pay $30 for a test – and that is not unheard of – your insurer is only on the hook for $12. You eat the $18.
And by the way, people on Medicare will have to pay for their tests themselves. People who get their health care covered by Medicaid can obtain free test kits at community centers.
A few free tests are supposed to arrive at every American home via the U.S. Postal Service. And the Biden administration has activated a website where Americans can order free tests from a cache of a billion the federal government ordered.
5. Will this help bring down the costs of at-home tests and make them easier to find?
The free COVID tests are unlikely to have much immediate impact on general cost and availability. You will still need to search for them. The federal measures likely will stimulate the demand for tests, which in the short term may make them harder to find.
But the demand, and some government guarantees to manufacturers, may induce test makers to make more of them faster. The increased competition and supply theoretically could bring down the price. There is certainly room for prices to decline since the wholesale cost of the test is between $5 and $7, analysts estimate. “It’s a big step in the right direction,” Ms. Gee said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
COVID at 2 years: Preparing for a different ‘normal’
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is still breaking records in hospital overcrowding and new cases.
The United States is logging nearly 800,000 cases a day, hospitals are starting to fray, and deaths have topped 850,000. Schools oscillate from remote to in-person learning, polarizing communities.
The vaccines are lifesaving for many, yet frustration mounts as the numbers of unvaccinated people in this country stays relatively stagnant (63% in the United States are fully vaccinated) and other parts of the world have seen hardly a single dose. Africa has the slowest vaccination rate among continents, with only 14% of the population receiving one shot, according to the New York Times tracker.
Yet
Effective vaccines and treatments that can keep people out of the hospital were developed at an astounding pace, and advances in tracking and testing – in both access and effectiveness – are starting to pay off.
Some experts say it’s possible that the raging Omicron surge will slow by late spring, providing some relief and maybe shifting the pandemic to a slower-burning endemic.
But other experts caution to keep our guard up, saying it’s time to settle into a “new normal” and upend the strategy for fighting COVID-19.
Time to change COVID thinking
Three former members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote recently in JAMA that COVID-19 has now become one of the many viral respiratory diseases that health care providers and patients will manage each year.
The group of experts from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, and New York University write that “many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (for example, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.”
Other experts, including Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, have said it’s been clear since the early days of SARS-CoV-2 that we must learn to live with the virus because it “will be ever present for the remaining history of our species.”
But that doesn’t mean the virus will always have the upper hand. Although the United States has been reaching record numbers of hospitalizations in January, these hospitalizations differ from those of last year – marked by fewer extreme lifesaving measures, fewer deaths, and shorter hospital stays – caused in part by medical and therapeutic advances and in part to the nature of the Omicron variant itself.
One sign of progress, Dr. Adalja said, will be the widespread decoupling of cases from hospitalizations, something that has already happened in countries such as the United Kingdom.
“That’s a reflection of how well they have vaccinated their high-risk population and how poorly we have vaccinated our high-risk population,” he said.
Omicron will bump up natural immunity
Dr. Adalja said though the numbers of unvaccinated in the United States appear to be stuck, Omicron’s sweep will make the difference, leaving behind more natural immunity in the population.
Currently, hospitals are struggling with staffing concerns as a “direct result” of too many unvaccinated people, he said.
Andrew Badley, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and director of the clinic’s COVID-19 Task Force, said the good news with Omicron is that nearly all people it infects will recover.
Over time, when the body sees foreign antigens repeatedly, the quantity and quality of the antibodies the immune system produces increase and the body becomes better at fighting disease.
So “a large amount of the population will have recovered and have a degree of immunity,” Dr. Badley said.
His optimism is tempered by his belief that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
But Dr. Badley still predicts a turnaround. “We’ll see a downturn in COVID in late spring or early summer,” and well into the second quarter of 2022, “we’ll see a reemergence of control.”
Right now, with Omicron, one infected person is infecting three to five others, he said. The hope is that it will eventually reach one-to-one endemic levels.
As for the threat of new variants, Badley said, “it’s not predictable whether they will be stronger or weaker.”
Masks may be around for years
Many experts predict that masks will continue to be part of the national wardrobe for the foreseeable future.
“We will continue to see new cases for years and years to come. Some will respond to that with masks in public places for a very long time. I personally will do so,” Dr. Badley said.
Two mindsets: Inside/outside the hospital
Emily Landon, MD, an infectious disease doctor and the executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization she views the pandemic from two different vantage points.
As a health care provider, she sees her hospital, like others worldwide, overwhelmed. Supplies of a major weapon to help prevent hospitalization, the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, are running out. Dr. Landon said she has been calling other hospitals to see if they have supplies and, if so, whether Omicron patients can transfer there.
Bottom line: The things they relied on a month ago to keep people out of the hospital are no longer there, she said.
Meanwhile, “We have more COVID patients than we have ever had,” Dr. Landon said.
Last year, UChicago hit a high of 170 people hospitalized with COVID. This year, so far, the peak was 270.
Dr. Landon said she is frustrated when she leaves that overburdened world inside the hospital for the outside world, where people wear no masks or ineffective face coverings and gather unsafely. Although some of that behavior reflects an intention to flout the advice of medical experts, some is caused in part, she said, by the lack of a clear national health strategy and garbled communication from those in charge of public safety.
Americans are deciding for themselves, on an a la carte basis, whether to wear a mask or get tested or travel, and school districts decide individually when it’s time to go virtual.
“People are exhausted from having to do a risk-benefit analysis for every single activity they, their friends, their kids want to participate in,” she said.
U.S. behind in several areas
Despite our self-image as the global leader in science and medicine, the United States stumbled badly in its response to the pandemic, with grave consequences both at home and abroad, experts say.
In a recent commentary in JAMA, Lawrence Gostin, JD, from Georgetown University, Washington, and Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed to several critical shortfalls in the nation’s efforts to control the disease.
One such shortfall is public trust.
This news organization reported in June 2021 that a poll of its readers found that 44% said their trust in the CDC had waned during the pandemic, and 33% said their trust in the FDA had eroded as well.
Health care providers who responded to the poll lost trust as well. About half of the doctors and nurses who responded said they disagreed with the FDA’s decision-making during the pandemic. Nearly 60% of doctors and 65% of nurses said they disagreed with the CDC’s overall pandemic guidance.
Lack of trust can make people resist vaccines and efforts to fight the virus, the authors wrote.
“This will become really relevant when we have ample supply of Pfizer’s antiviral medication,” Mr. Gostin, who directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, told this news organization. “The next phase of the pandemic is not to link testing to contact tracing, because we’re way past that, but to link testing to treatment.”
Lack of regional manufacturing of products is also thwarting global progress.
“It is extraordinarily important that our pharmaceutical industry transfer technology in a pandemic,” Mr. Gostin said. “The most glaring failure to do that is the mRNA vaccines. We’ve got this enormously effective vaccine and the two manufacturers – Pfizer and Moderna – are refusing to share the technology with producers in other countries. That keeps coming back to haunt us.”
Another problem: When the vaccines are shared with other countries, they are being delivered close to the date they expire or arriving at a shipyards without warning, so even some of the doses that get delivered are going to waste, Mr. Gostin said.
“It’s one of the greatest moral failures of my lifetime,” he said.
Also a failure is the “jaw-dropping” state of testing 2 years into the pandemic, he said, as people continue to pay high prices for tests or endure long lines.
The U.S. government updated its calculations and ordered 1 billion tests for the general public. The COVIDtests.gov website to order the free tests is now live.
It’s a step in the right direction. Mr. Gostin and Dr. Nuzzo wrote that there is every reason to expect future epidemics that are as serious or more serious than COVID.
“Failure to address clearly observed weaknesses in the COVID-19 response will have preventable adverse health, social, and economic consequences when the next novel outbreak occurs,” they wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is still breaking records in hospital overcrowding and new cases.
The United States is logging nearly 800,000 cases a day, hospitals are starting to fray, and deaths have topped 850,000. Schools oscillate from remote to in-person learning, polarizing communities.
The vaccines are lifesaving for many, yet frustration mounts as the numbers of unvaccinated people in this country stays relatively stagnant (63% in the United States are fully vaccinated) and other parts of the world have seen hardly a single dose. Africa has the slowest vaccination rate among continents, with only 14% of the population receiving one shot, according to the New York Times tracker.
Yet
Effective vaccines and treatments that can keep people out of the hospital were developed at an astounding pace, and advances in tracking and testing – in both access and effectiveness – are starting to pay off.
Some experts say it’s possible that the raging Omicron surge will slow by late spring, providing some relief and maybe shifting the pandemic to a slower-burning endemic.
But other experts caution to keep our guard up, saying it’s time to settle into a “new normal” and upend the strategy for fighting COVID-19.
Time to change COVID thinking
Three former members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote recently in JAMA that COVID-19 has now become one of the many viral respiratory diseases that health care providers and patients will manage each year.
The group of experts from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, and New York University write that “many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (for example, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.”
Other experts, including Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, have said it’s been clear since the early days of SARS-CoV-2 that we must learn to live with the virus because it “will be ever present for the remaining history of our species.”
But that doesn’t mean the virus will always have the upper hand. Although the United States has been reaching record numbers of hospitalizations in January, these hospitalizations differ from those of last year – marked by fewer extreme lifesaving measures, fewer deaths, and shorter hospital stays – caused in part by medical and therapeutic advances and in part to the nature of the Omicron variant itself.
One sign of progress, Dr. Adalja said, will be the widespread decoupling of cases from hospitalizations, something that has already happened in countries such as the United Kingdom.
“That’s a reflection of how well they have vaccinated their high-risk population and how poorly we have vaccinated our high-risk population,” he said.
Omicron will bump up natural immunity
Dr. Adalja said though the numbers of unvaccinated in the United States appear to be stuck, Omicron’s sweep will make the difference, leaving behind more natural immunity in the population.
Currently, hospitals are struggling with staffing concerns as a “direct result” of too many unvaccinated people, he said.
Andrew Badley, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and director of the clinic’s COVID-19 Task Force, said the good news with Omicron is that nearly all people it infects will recover.
Over time, when the body sees foreign antigens repeatedly, the quantity and quality of the antibodies the immune system produces increase and the body becomes better at fighting disease.
So “a large amount of the population will have recovered and have a degree of immunity,” Dr. Badley said.
His optimism is tempered by his belief that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
But Dr. Badley still predicts a turnaround. “We’ll see a downturn in COVID in late spring or early summer,” and well into the second quarter of 2022, “we’ll see a reemergence of control.”
Right now, with Omicron, one infected person is infecting three to five others, he said. The hope is that it will eventually reach one-to-one endemic levels.
As for the threat of new variants, Badley said, “it’s not predictable whether they will be stronger or weaker.”
Masks may be around for years
Many experts predict that masks will continue to be part of the national wardrobe for the foreseeable future.
“We will continue to see new cases for years and years to come. Some will respond to that with masks in public places for a very long time. I personally will do so,” Dr. Badley said.
Two mindsets: Inside/outside the hospital
Emily Landon, MD, an infectious disease doctor and the executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization she views the pandemic from two different vantage points.
As a health care provider, she sees her hospital, like others worldwide, overwhelmed. Supplies of a major weapon to help prevent hospitalization, the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, are running out. Dr. Landon said she has been calling other hospitals to see if they have supplies and, if so, whether Omicron patients can transfer there.
Bottom line: The things they relied on a month ago to keep people out of the hospital are no longer there, she said.
Meanwhile, “We have more COVID patients than we have ever had,” Dr. Landon said.
Last year, UChicago hit a high of 170 people hospitalized with COVID. This year, so far, the peak was 270.
Dr. Landon said she is frustrated when she leaves that overburdened world inside the hospital for the outside world, where people wear no masks or ineffective face coverings and gather unsafely. Although some of that behavior reflects an intention to flout the advice of medical experts, some is caused in part, she said, by the lack of a clear national health strategy and garbled communication from those in charge of public safety.
Americans are deciding for themselves, on an a la carte basis, whether to wear a mask or get tested or travel, and school districts decide individually when it’s time to go virtual.
“People are exhausted from having to do a risk-benefit analysis for every single activity they, their friends, their kids want to participate in,” she said.
U.S. behind in several areas
Despite our self-image as the global leader in science and medicine, the United States stumbled badly in its response to the pandemic, with grave consequences both at home and abroad, experts say.
In a recent commentary in JAMA, Lawrence Gostin, JD, from Georgetown University, Washington, and Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed to several critical shortfalls in the nation’s efforts to control the disease.
One such shortfall is public trust.
This news organization reported in June 2021 that a poll of its readers found that 44% said their trust in the CDC had waned during the pandemic, and 33% said their trust in the FDA had eroded as well.
Health care providers who responded to the poll lost trust as well. About half of the doctors and nurses who responded said they disagreed with the FDA’s decision-making during the pandemic. Nearly 60% of doctors and 65% of nurses said they disagreed with the CDC’s overall pandemic guidance.
Lack of trust can make people resist vaccines and efforts to fight the virus, the authors wrote.
“This will become really relevant when we have ample supply of Pfizer’s antiviral medication,” Mr. Gostin, who directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, told this news organization. “The next phase of the pandemic is not to link testing to contact tracing, because we’re way past that, but to link testing to treatment.”
Lack of regional manufacturing of products is also thwarting global progress.
“It is extraordinarily important that our pharmaceutical industry transfer technology in a pandemic,” Mr. Gostin said. “The most glaring failure to do that is the mRNA vaccines. We’ve got this enormously effective vaccine and the two manufacturers – Pfizer and Moderna – are refusing to share the technology with producers in other countries. That keeps coming back to haunt us.”
Another problem: When the vaccines are shared with other countries, they are being delivered close to the date they expire or arriving at a shipyards without warning, so even some of the doses that get delivered are going to waste, Mr. Gostin said.
“It’s one of the greatest moral failures of my lifetime,” he said.
Also a failure is the “jaw-dropping” state of testing 2 years into the pandemic, he said, as people continue to pay high prices for tests or endure long lines.
The U.S. government updated its calculations and ordered 1 billion tests for the general public. The COVIDtests.gov website to order the free tests is now live.
It’s a step in the right direction. Mr. Gostin and Dr. Nuzzo wrote that there is every reason to expect future epidemics that are as serious or more serious than COVID.
“Failure to address clearly observed weaknesses in the COVID-19 response will have preventable adverse health, social, and economic consequences when the next novel outbreak occurs,” they wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is still breaking records in hospital overcrowding and new cases.
The United States is logging nearly 800,000 cases a day, hospitals are starting to fray, and deaths have topped 850,000. Schools oscillate from remote to in-person learning, polarizing communities.
The vaccines are lifesaving for many, yet frustration mounts as the numbers of unvaccinated people in this country stays relatively stagnant (63% in the United States are fully vaccinated) and other parts of the world have seen hardly a single dose. Africa has the slowest vaccination rate among continents, with only 14% of the population receiving one shot, according to the New York Times tracker.
Yet
Effective vaccines and treatments that can keep people out of the hospital were developed at an astounding pace, and advances in tracking and testing – in both access and effectiveness – are starting to pay off.
Some experts say it’s possible that the raging Omicron surge will slow by late spring, providing some relief and maybe shifting the pandemic to a slower-burning endemic.
But other experts caution to keep our guard up, saying it’s time to settle into a “new normal” and upend the strategy for fighting COVID-19.
Time to change COVID thinking
Three former members of the Biden-Harris Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board wrote recently in JAMA that COVID-19 has now become one of the many viral respiratory diseases that health care providers and patients will manage each year.
The group of experts from the University of Pennsylvania, University of Minnesota, and New York University write that “many of the measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (for example, ventilation) will also reduce transmission of other respiratory viruses. Thus, policy makers should retire previous public health categorizations, including deaths from pneumonia and influenza or pneumonia, influenza, and COVID-19, and focus on a new category: the aggregate risk of all respiratory virus infections.”
Other experts, including Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, have said it’s been clear since the early days of SARS-CoV-2 that we must learn to live with the virus because it “will be ever present for the remaining history of our species.”
But that doesn’t mean the virus will always have the upper hand. Although the United States has been reaching record numbers of hospitalizations in January, these hospitalizations differ from those of last year – marked by fewer extreme lifesaving measures, fewer deaths, and shorter hospital stays – caused in part by medical and therapeutic advances and in part to the nature of the Omicron variant itself.
One sign of progress, Dr. Adalja said, will be the widespread decoupling of cases from hospitalizations, something that has already happened in countries such as the United Kingdom.
“That’s a reflection of how well they have vaccinated their high-risk population and how poorly we have vaccinated our high-risk population,” he said.
Omicron will bump up natural immunity
Dr. Adalja said though the numbers of unvaccinated in the United States appear to be stuck, Omicron’s sweep will make the difference, leaving behind more natural immunity in the population.
Currently, hospitals are struggling with staffing concerns as a “direct result” of too many unvaccinated people, he said.
Andrew Badley, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and director of the clinic’s COVID-19 Task Force, said the good news with Omicron is that nearly all people it infects will recover.
Over time, when the body sees foreign antigens repeatedly, the quantity and quality of the antibodies the immune system produces increase and the body becomes better at fighting disease.
So “a large amount of the population will have recovered and have a degree of immunity,” Dr. Badley said.
His optimism is tempered by his belief that “it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
But Dr. Badley still predicts a turnaround. “We’ll see a downturn in COVID in late spring or early summer,” and well into the second quarter of 2022, “we’ll see a reemergence of control.”
Right now, with Omicron, one infected person is infecting three to five others, he said. The hope is that it will eventually reach one-to-one endemic levels.
As for the threat of new variants, Badley said, “it’s not predictable whether they will be stronger or weaker.”
Masks may be around for years
Many experts predict that masks will continue to be part of the national wardrobe for the foreseeable future.
“We will continue to see new cases for years and years to come. Some will respond to that with masks in public places for a very long time. I personally will do so,” Dr. Badley said.
Two mindsets: Inside/outside the hospital
Emily Landon, MD, an infectious disease doctor and the executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization she views the pandemic from two different vantage points.
As a health care provider, she sees her hospital, like others worldwide, overwhelmed. Supplies of a major weapon to help prevent hospitalization, the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, are running out. Dr. Landon said she has been calling other hospitals to see if they have supplies and, if so, whether Omicron patients can transfer there.
Bottom line: The things they relied on a month ago to keep people out of the hospital are no longer there, she said.
Meanwhile, “We have more COVID patients than we have ever had,” Dr. Landon said.
Last year, UChicago hit a high of 170 people hospitalized with COVID. This year, so far, the peak was 270.
Dr. Landon said she is frustrated when she leaves that overburdened world inside the hospital for the outside world, where people wear no masks or ineffective face coverings and gather unsafely. Although some of that behavior reflects an intention to flout the advice of medical experts, some is caused in part, she said, by the lack of a clear national health strategy and garbled communication from those in charge of public safety.
Americans are deciding for themselves, on an a la carte basis, whether to wear a mask or get tested or travel, and school districts decide individually when it’s time to go virtual.
“People are exhausted from having to do a risk-benefit analysis for every single activity they, their friends, their kids want to participate in,” she said.
U.S. behind in several areas
Despite our self-image as the global leader in science and medicine, the United States stumbled badly in its response to the pandemic, with grave consequences both at home and abroad, experts say.
In a recent commentary in JAMA, Lawrence Gostin, JD, from Georgetown University, Washington, and Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, pointed to several critical shortfalls in the nation’s efforts to control the disease.
One such shortfall is public trust.
This news organization reported in June 2021 that a poll of its readers found that 44% said their trust in the CDC had waned during the pandemic, and 33% said their trust in the FDA had eroded as well.
Health care providers who responded to the poll lost trust as well. About half of the doctors and nurses who responded said they disagreed with the FDA’s decision-making during the pandemic. Nearly 60% of doctors and 65% of nurses said they disagreed with the CDC’s overall pandemic guidance.
Lack of trust can make people resist vaccines and efforts to fight the virus, the authors wrote.
“This will become really relevant when we have ample supply of Pfizer’s antiviral medication,” Mr. Gostin, who directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, told this news organization. “The next phase of the pandemic is not to link testing to contact tracing, because we’re way past that, but to link testing to treatment.”
Lack of regional manufacturing of products is also thwarting global progress.
“It is extraordinarily important that our pharmaceutical industry transfer technology in a pandemic,” Mr. Gostin said. “The most glaring failure to do that is the mRNA vaccines. We’ve got this enormously effective vaccine and the two manufacturers – Pfizer and Moderna – are refusing to share the technology with producers in other countries. That keeps coming back to haunt us.”
Another problem: When the vaccines are shared with other countries, they are being delivered close to the date they expire or arriving at a shipyards without warning, so even some of the doses that get delivered are going to waste, Mr. Gostin said.
“It’s one of the greatest moral failures of my lifetime,” he said.
Also a failure is the “jaw-dropping” state of testing 2 years into the pandemic, he said, as people continue to pay high prices for tests or endure long lines.
The U.S. government updated its calculations and ordered 1 billion tests for the general public. The COVIDtests.gov website to order the free tests is now live.
It’s a step in the right direction. Mr. Gostin and Dr. Nuzzo wrote that there is every reason to expect future epidemics that are as serious or more serious than COVID.
“Failure to address clearly observed weaknesses in the COVID-19 response will have preventable adverse health, social, and economic consequences when the next novel outbreak occurs,” they wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Make America beautiful: Support mask mandates
In space, no one can hear your red blood cells scream
There are many reasons why space is the final frontier, not least of which are the major health issues space travel places on the human body. So until a shady billionaire finds an alien protomolecule on a Saturnian moon and starts splicing it with human DNA so we can hang out in space all day without a spacesuit, we’re stuck with things like space anemia, a condition many astronauts develop after extended time in space.
Space anemia has been known for many years, but it was assumed that it developed as a reaction to microgravity and was a short-term phenomenon only – a temporary compensation as fluids and blood volume adjusted themselves. But as new research shows, that assumption seems to be wrong.
For the study, published in Nature Medicine, 13 astronauts who were in space for at least 120 days – long enough for all their red blood cells to have been produced in space – had their blood tested consistently. Before their flights, the astronauts created and destroyed 2 million red blood cells per second, but while they were in space, they destroyed 3 million cells per second. Notably, this process continued for the entire duration of the space flight. So, not a temporary reaction.
Consequently, 5 of the 13 astronauts developed anemia when they returned to Earth. (Interesting space fact: Having fewer blood cells isn’t a problem while you’re in space; the effects of anemia only manifest when the body returns to full gravity.) The anemia disappeared after a few months, but the astronauts were still destroying 30% more red blood cells a year after their spaceflight than they were before leaving Earth.
You may be thinking: Well, if they were destroying 50% more red blood cells while in space, how come they didn’t all develop severe anemia? The researchers theorized that production was boosted as well, which sounds like a good thing. The body is compensating, as it should. Unfortunately, that increased production stresses bone marrow function and the demand for energy spikes. That’s not such a good thing. And of course, many of the astronauts got anemia anyway.
To tackle the issue, the researchers emphasized the importance of feeding astronauts a proper diet, plus potential supplements before spaceflight. So don’t worry, Captain Kirk will be able to arm wrestle Klingons and romance suspiciously human-looking aliens without fear of keeling over from anemia-induced fatigue. Earth will stay safe.
Tell me with your eyes
Communication can be hard, even under the best of circumstances, but for many nonverbal patients in the intensive care unit who can’t move, getting a point across to the health care team can be a huge struggle in itself.
Health care professionals have been making do with eye-blinking or head-nodding, but what if that’s just not enough? New research shows that it’s not, and there’s a more effective way for patients to say what they mean just by looking.
In a study published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, researchers looked into using eye-tracking systems for nonverbal ICU patients to communicate. Eye-tracking isn’t anything new, but using it as a form of communication among nonverbal patients with critical illness hasn’t been looked at before.
How does it work? The eye-tracking system is set up in the patient’s line of sight and its various algorithms and software collect data to calculate where exactly the patient is looking. Established scores and scales assess the patient’s mood, quality of life, pain, and self-esteem.
The researchers found that participating patients were actually experiencing more negative moods, pain, and feelings of frustration than was once believed. Making this tool even more valuable for treatment adjustment and meeting patients’ needs.
In this case, it means that health care providers are getting an eyeful … of communication.
Make America grave again
Here we go again. Somebody just found something else that the United States is not the best at. To go along with math and science education, infrastructure investment, quality of life …
That’s going to go on for a while, so let’s get to the new stuff. An international group of researchers surveyed end-of-life care in 81 countries and ranked them based on the assessment of 181 experts in those countries. They looked at 13 different factors, including proper management of pain and comfort, having a clean and safe space, being treated kindly, lack of cost barriers to appropriate care, and treatments that address quality of life and don’t just extend life.
… press freedom, industrial production, racial equality, Internet connectivity …
Their report card, published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, gave six countries an A, with Great Britain at the top. The other five were Ireland, Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, and Costa Rica. The lowest grade went to Paraguay in 81st place, with Lebanon, Brazil, Senegal, and Haiti just ahead.
… environmental stewardship, body-mass index, social mobility, COVID safeness …
The United States, getting a firm grasp on mediocrity, ranked 43rd. Here are some countries that did better: North Macedonia (7th), Sri Lanka (16th), Uganda (31st), and Uruguay 33rd). In the United States, “we spend so much money trying to get people to live longer, but we don’t spend enough money in helping people die better,” lead author Eric A. Finkelstein, PhD, said in a written statement.
… economic stability, and soccer; we’re also not the best at dying. Wait, did we already say that?
The face mask that launched a thousand ships
Face masks, clearly, have been a source of social strife during the pandemic. People may not agree on mandates, but a mask can be a pretty-low-maintenance face shield if you don’t feel like putting on make-up or want to cover up some blemishes.
Before the pandemic, people thought that those wearing face masks were less attractive because the masks represented illness or disease, according to Dr. Michael Lewis of Cardiff (Wales) University. Back then, no one really wore masks besides doctors and nurses, so if you saw someone wearing one on the street, you probably wondered what they were trying to hide.
Now, though, the subject of face mask attractiveness has been revisited by Dr. Lewis and his associate, Oliver Hies, who found that face masks now make people more attractive.
“Our study suggests faces are considered most attractive when covered by medical face masks. … At a time when we feel vulnerable, we may find the wearing of medical masks reassuring and so feel more positive towards the wearer,” Dr. Lewis told the Guardian.
He suggested that we’re no longer looking at people wearing a mask as disease riddled, but rather doing their part to protect society. Or maybe we focus more on someone’s eyes when that’s all there is to look at. Or, maybe we wind up making up what the rest of someone’s face looks like to meet our attractiveness criteria.
However you feel about masks, they’re cheaper than plastic surgery. And you can go out wearing a new face every day.
In space, no one can hear your red blood cells scream
There are many reasons why space is the final frontier, not least of which are the major health issues space travel places on the human body. So until a shady billionaire finds an alien protomolecule on a Saturnian moon and starts splicing it with human DNA so we can hang out in space all day without a spacesuit, we’re stuck with things like space anemia, a condition many astronauts develop after extended time in space.
Space anemia has been known for many years, but it was assumed that it developed as a reaction to microgravity and was a short-term phenomenon only – a temporary compensation as fluids and blood volume adjusted themselves. But as new research shows, that assumption seems to be wrong.
For the study, published in Nature Medicine, 13 astronauts who were in space for at least 120 days – long enough for all their red blood cells to have been produced in space – had their blood tested consistently. Before their flights, the astronauts created and destroyed 2 million red blood cells per second, but while they were in space, they destroyed 3 million cells per second. Notably, this process continued for the entire duration of the space flight. So, not a temporary reaction.
Consequently, 5 of the 13 astronauts developed anemia when they returned to Earth. (Interesting space fact: Having fewer blood cells isn’t a problem while you’re in space; the effects of anemia only manifest when the body returns to full gravity.) The anemia disappeared after a few months, but the astronauts were still destroying 30% more red blood cells a year after their spaceflight than they were before leaving Earth.
You may be thinking: Well, if they were destroying 50% more red blood cells while in space, how come they didn’t all develop severe anemia? The researchers theorized that production was boosted as well, which sounds like a good thing. The body is compensating, as it should. Unfortunately, that increased production stresses bone marrow function and the demand for energy spikes. That’s not such a good thing. And of course, many of the astronauts got anemia anyway.
To tackle the issue, the researchers emphasized the importance of feeding astronauts a proper diet, plus potential supplements before spaceflight. So don’t worry, Captain Kirk will be able to arm wrestle Klingons and romance suspiciously human-looking aliens without fear of keeling over from anemia-induced fatigue. Earth will stay safe.
Tell me with your eyes
Communication can be hard, even under the best of circumstances, but for many nonverbal patients in the intensive care unit who can’t move, getting a point across to the health care team can be a huge struggle in itself.
Health care professionals have been making do with eye-blinking or head-nodding, but what if that’s just not enough? New research shows that it’s not, and there’s a more effective way for patients to say what they mean just by looking.
In a study published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, researchers looked into using eye-tracking systems for nonverbal ICU patients to communicate. Eye-tracking isn’t anything new, but using it as a form of communication among nonverbal patients with critical illness hasn’t been looked at before.
How does it work? The eye-tracking system is set up in the patient’s line of sight and its various algorithms and software collect data to calculate where exactly the patient is looking. Established scores and scales assess the patient’s mood, quality of life, pain, and self-esteem.
The researchers found that participating patients were actually experiencing more negative moods, pain, and feelings of frustration than was once believed. Making this tool even more valuable for treatment adjustment and meeting patients’ needs.
In this case, it means that health care providers are getting an eyeful … of communication.
Make America grave again
Here we go again. Somebody just found something else that the United States is not the best at. To go along with math and science education, infrastructure investment, quality of life …
That’s going to go on for a while, so let’s get to the new stuff. An international group of researchers surveyed end-of-life care in 81 countries and ranked them based on the assessment of 181 experts in those countries. They looked at 13 different factors, including proper management of pain and comfort, having a clean and safe space, being treated kindly, lack of cost barriers to appropriate care, and treatments that address quality of life and don’t just extend life.
… press freedom, industrial production, racial equality, Internet connectivity …
Their report card, published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, gave six countries an A, with Great Britain at the top. The other five were Ireland, Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, and Costa Rica. The lowest grade went to Paraguay in 81st place, with Lebanon, Brazil, Senegal, and Haiti just ahead.
… environmental stewardship, body-mass index, social mobility, COVID safeness …
The United States, getting a firm grasp on mediocrity, ranked 43rd. Here are some countries that did better: North Macedonia (7th), Sri Lanka (16th), Uganda (31st), and Uruguay 33rd). In the United States, “we spend so much money trying to get people to live longer, but we don’t spend enough money in helping people die better,” lead author Eric A. Finkelstein, PhD, said in a written statement.
… economic stability, and soccer; we’re also not the best at dying. Wait, did we already say that?
The face mask that launched a thousand ships
Face masks, clearly, have been a source of social strife during the pandemic. People may not agree on mandates, but a mask can be a pretty-low-maintenance face shield if you don’t feel like putting on make-up or want to cover up some blemishes.
Before the pandemic, people thought that those wearing face masks were less attractive because the masks represented illness or disease, according to Dr. Michael Lewis of Cardiff (Wales) University. Back then, no one really wore masks besides doctors and nurses, so if you saw someone wearing one on the street, you probably wondered what they were trying to hide.
Now, though, the subject of face mask attractiveness has been revisited by Dr. Lewis and his associate, Oliver Hies, who found that face masks now make people more attractive.
“Our study suggests faces are considered most attractive when covered by medical face masks. … At a time when we feel vulnerable, we may find the wearing of medical masks reassuring and so feel more positive towards the wearer,” Dr. Lewis told the Guardian.
He suggested that we’re no longer looking at people wearing a mask as disease riddled, but rather doing their part to protect society. Or maybe we focus more on someone’s eyes when that’s all there is to look at. Or, maybe we wind up making up what the rest of someone’s face looks like to meet our attractiveness criteria.
However you feel about masks, they’re cheaper than plastic surgery. And you can go out wearing a new face every day.
In space, no one can hear your red blood cells scream
There are many reasons why space is the final frontier, not least of which are the major health issues space travel places on the human body. So until a shady billionaire finds an alien protomolecule on a Saturnian moon and starts splicing it with human DNA so we can hang out in space all day without a spacesuit, we’re stuck with things like space anemia, a condition many astronauts develop after extended time in space.
Space anemia has been known for many years, but it was assumed that it developed as a reaction to microgravity and was a short-term phenomenon only – a temporary compensation as fluids and blood volume adjusted themselves. But as new research shows, that assumption seems to be wrong.
For the study, published in Nature Medicine, 13 astronauts who were in space for at least 120 days – long enough for all their red blood cells to have been produced in space – had their blood tested consistently. Before their flights, the astronauts created and destroyed 2 million red blood cells per second, but while they were in space, they destroyed 3 million cells per second. Notably, this process continued for the entire duration of the space flight. So, not a temporary reaction.
Consequently, 5 of the 13 astronauts developed anemia when they returned to Earth. (Interesting space fact: Having fewer blood cells isn’t a problem while you’re in space; the effects of anemia only manifest when the body returns to full gravity.) The anemia disappeared after a few months, but the astronauts were still destroying 30% more red blood cells a year after their spaceflight than they were before leaving Earth.
You may be thinking: Well, if they were destroying 50% more red blood cells while in space, how come they didn’t all develop severe anemia? The researchers theorized that production was boosted as well, which sounds like a good thing. The body is compensating, as it should. Unfortunately, that increased production stresses bone marrow function and the demand for energy spikes. That’s not such a good thing. And of course, many of the astronauts got anemia anyway.
To tackle the issue, the researchers emphasized the importance of feeding astronauts a proper diet, plus potential supplements before spaceflight. So don’t worry, Captain Kirk will be able to arm wrestle Klingons and romance suspiciously human-looking aliens without fear of keeling over from anemia-induced fatigue. Earth will stay safe.
Tell me with your eyes
Communication can be hard, even under the best of circumstances, but for many nonverbal patients in the intensive care unit who can’t move, getting a point across to the health care team can be a huge struggle in itself.
Health care professionals have been making do with eye-blinking or head-nodding, but what if that’s just not enough? New research shows that it’s not, and there’s a more effective way for patients to say what they mean just by looking.
In a study published in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, researchers looked into using eye-tracking systems for nonverbal ICU patients to communicate. Eye-tracking isn’t anything new, but using it as a form of communication among nonverbal patients with critical illness hasn’t been looked at before.
How does it work? The eye-tracking system is set up in the patient’s line of sight and its various algorithms and software collect data to calculate where exactly the patient is looking. Established scores and scales assess the patient’s mood, quality of life, pain, and self-esteem.
The researchers found that participating patients were actually experiencing more negative moods, pain, and feelings of frustration than was once believed. Making this tool even more valuable for treatment adjustment and meeting patients’ needs.
In this case, it means that health care providers are getting an eyeful … of communication.
Make America grave again
Here we go again. Somebody just found something else that the United States is not the best at. To go along with math and science education, infrastructure investment, quality of life …
That’s going to go on for a while, so let’s get to the new stuff. An international group of researchers surveyed end-of-life care in 81 countries and ranked them based on the assessment of 181 experts in those countries. They looked at 13 different factors, including proper management of pain and comfort, having a clean and safe space, being treated kindly, lack of cost barriers to appropriate care, and treatments that address quality of life and don’t just extend life.
… press freedom, industrial production, racial equality, Internet connectivity …
Their report card, published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, gave six countries an A, with Great Britain at the top. The other five were Ireland, Taiwan, Australia, South Korea, and Costa Rica. The lowest grade went to Paraguay in 81st place, with Lebanon, Brazil, Senegal, and Haiti just ahead.
… environmental stewardship, body-mass index, social mobility, COVID safeness …
The United States, getting a firm grasp on mediocrity, ranked 43rd. Here are some countries that did better: North Macedonia (7th), Sri Lanka (16th), Uganda (31st), and Uruguay 33rd). In the United States, “we spend so much money trying to get people to live longer, but we don’t spend enough money in helping people die better,” lead author Eric A. Finkelstein, PhD, said in a written statement.
… economic stability, and soccer; we’re also not the best at dying. Wait, did we already say that?
The face mask that launched a thousand ships
Face masks, clearly, have been a source of social strife during the pandemic. People may not agree on mandates, but a mask can be a pretty-low-maintenance face shield if you don’t feel like putting on make-up or want to cover up some blemishes.
Before the pandemic, people thought that those wearing face masks were less attractive because the masks represented illness or disease, according to Dr. Michael Lewis of Cardiff (Wales) University. Back then, no one really wore masks besides doctors and nurses, so if you saw someone wearing one on the street, you probably wondered what they were trying to hide.
Now, though, the subject of face mask attractiveness has been revisited by Dr. Lewis and his associate, Oliver Hies, who found that face masks now make people more attractive.
“Our study suggests faces are considered most attractive when covered by medical face masks. … At a time when we feel vulnerable, we may find the wearing of medical masks reassuring and so feel more positive towards the wearer,” Dr. Lewis told the Guardian.
He suggested that we’re no longer looking at people wearing a mask as disease riddled, but rather doing their part to protect society. Or maybe we focus more on someone’s eyes when that’s all there is to look at. Or, maybe we wind up making up what the rest of someone’s face looks like to meet our attractiveness criteria.
However you feel about masks, they’re cheaper than plastic surgery. And you can go out wearing a new face every day.
Pandemic weighing on physicians’ happiness outside of work: survey
One of the unexpected consequences of the pandemic is that many people are rethinking their priorities and lifestyles, and physicians are no exception.
Pets, prayer, and partners
The pandemic has taken a toll on physicians outside of work as well as on the job. Eight in 10 physicians (82% of men and 80% of women) said they were “somewhat” or “very” happy outside of work before the pandemic. This is almost exactly the same result as in last year’s survey.
However, when asked how happy they are outside of work currently, only 6 in 10 (59%) reported being “somewhat” or “very” happy. While the pandemic has made life difficult for everyone, health care professionals face particular stresses even outside of work. Wayne M. Sotile, PhD, founder of the Center for Physician Resilience, says he has counseled doctors who witnessed COVID-related suffering and death at work, then came home to a partner who didn’t believe that the pandemic was real.
Still, physicians reported that spending time with people they love and engaging in favorite activities helps them stay happy. “Spending time with pets” and “religious practice/prayer” were frequent “other” responses to the question, “What do you do to maintain happiness and mental health?” Seven in 10 physicians reported having some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.
The majority of physicians (83%) are either married or living with a partner, with male physicians edging out their female peers (89% vs. 75%). Among married physicians, 8 in 10 physicians reported that their union is “good” or “very good.” The pandemic may have helped in this respect. Dr. Sotile says he’s heard physicians say that they’ve connected more with their families in the past 18 months. Specialists with the highest rates of happy marriages were otolaryngologists and immunologists (both 91%), followed closely by dermatologists, rheumatologists, and nephrologists (all 90%).
Among physicians balancing a medical career and parenthood, female physicians reported feeling conflicted more often than males (48% vs. 29%). Nicole A. Sparks, MD, an ob.gyn. and a health and lifestyle blogger, cites not being there for her kids as a source of stress. She notes that her two young children notice when she’s not there to help with homework, read bedtime stories, or make their dinner. “Mom guilt can definitely set in if I have to miss important events,” she says.
Work-life balance is an important, if elusive, goal for physicians, and not just females. Sixty percent of female doctors and 53% of male doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if it meant more free time and a better work-life balance. Many doctors do manage to get away from work occasionally, with one-fifth of all physicians taking 5 or more weeks of vacation each year.
Seeking a ‘balanced life’
Alexis Polles, MD, medical director for the Professionals Resource Network, points out the importance of taking time for personal health and wellness. “When we work with professionals who have problems with mental health or substance abuse, they often don’t have a balanced life,” she says. “They are usually in a workaholic mindset and disregard their own needs.”
Few physicians seem to prioritize self-care, with a third indicating they “always” or “most of the time” spend enough time on their own health and wellness. But of those who do, males (38%) are more likely than females (27%) to spend enough time on their own health and wellness. Dr. Polles adds that exercising after a shift can help physicians better make the transition from professional to personal life. Though they did not report when they exercised, about a third of physicians reported doing so four or more times per week. Controlling weight is an issue as well, with 49% of male and 55% of female physicians saying they are currently trying to lose weight.
Of physicians who drink alcohol, about a third have three or more drinks per week. (The CDC defines “heavy drinking” as consuming 15 drinks or more per week for men and eight drinks or more per week for women.)
Of those surveyed, 92% say they do not regularly use cannabidiol or cannabis, and a mere 4% of respondents said they would use at least one of these substances if they were to become legal in their state.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One of the unexpected consequences of the pandemic is that many people are rethinking their priorities and lifestyles, and physicians are no exception.
Pets, prayer, and partners
The pandemic has taken a toll on physicians outside of work as well as on the job. Eight in 10 physicians (82% of men and 80% of women) said they were “somewhat” or “very” happy outside of work before the pandemic. This is almost exactly the same result as in last year’s survey.
However, when asked how happy they are outside of work currently, only 6 in 10 (59%) reported being “somewhat” or “very” happy. While the pandemic has made life difficult for everyone, health care professionals face particular stresses even outside of work. Wayne M. Sotile, PhD, founder of the Center for Physician Resilience, says he has counseled doctors who witnessed COVID-related suffering and death at work, then came home to a partner who didn’t believe that the pandemic was real.
Still, physicians reported that spending time with people they love and engaging in favorite activities helps them stay happy. “Spending time with pets” and “religious practice/prayer” were frequent “other” responses to the question, “What do you do to maintain happiness and mental health?” Seven in 10 physicians reported having some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.
The majority of physicians (83%) are either married or living with a partner, with male physicians edging out their female peers (89% vs. 75%). Among married physicians, 8 in 10 physicians reported that their union is “good” or “very good.” The pandemic may have helped in this respect. Dr. Sotile says he’s heard physicians say that they’ve connected more with their families in the past 18 months. Specialists with the highest rates of happy marriages were otolaryngologists and immunologists (both 91%), followed closely by dermatologists, rheumatologists, and nephrologists (all 90%).
Among physicians balancing a medical career and parenthood, female physicians reported feeling conflicted more often than males (48% vs. 29%). Nicole A. Sparks, MD, an ob.gyn. and a health and lifestyle blogger, cites not being there for her kids as a source of stress. She notes that her two young children notice when she’s not there to help with homework, read bedtime stories, or make their dinner. “Mom guilt can definitely set in if I have to miss important events,” she says.
Work-life balance is an important, if elusive, goal for physicians, and not just females. Sixty percent of female doctors and 53% of male doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if it meant more free time and a better work-life balance. Many doctors do manage to get away from work occasionally, with one-fifth of all physicians taking 5 or more weeks of vacation each year.
Seeking a ‘balanced life’
Alexis Polles, MD, medical director for the Professionals Resource Network, points out the importance of taking time for personal health and wellness. “When we work with professionals who have problems with mental health or substance abuse, they often don’t have a balanced life,” she says. “They are usually in a workaholic mindset and disregard their own needs.”
Few physicians seem to prioritize self-care, with a third indicating they “always” or “most of the time” spend enough time on their own health and wellness. But of those who do, males (38%) are more likely than females (27%) to spend enough time on their own health and wellness. Dr. Polles adds that exercising after a shift can help physicians better make the transition from professional to personal life. Though they did not report when they exercised, about a third of physicians reported doing so four or more times per week. Controlling weight is an issue as well, with 49% of male and 55% of female physicians saying they are currently trying to lose weight.
Of physicians who drink alcohol, about a third have three or more drinks per week. (The CDC defines “heavy drinking” as consuming 15 drinks or more per week for men and eight drinks or more per week for women.)
Of those surveyed, 92% say they do not regularly use cannabidiol or cannabis, and a mere 4% of respondents said they would use at least one of these substances if they were to become legal in their state.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One of the unexpected consequences of the pandemic is that many people are rethinking their priorities and lifestyles, and physicians are no exception.
Pets, prayer, and partners
The pandemic has taken a toll on physicians outside of work as well as on the job. Eight in 10 physicians (82% of men and 80% of women) said they were “somewhat” or “very” happy outside of work before the pandemic. This is almost exactly the same result as in last year’s survey.
However, when asked how happy they are outside of work currently, only 6 in 10 (59%) reported being “somewhat” or “very” happy. While the pandemic has made life difficult for everyone, health care professionals face particular stresses even outside of work. Wayne M. Sotile, PhD, founder of the Center for Physician Resilience, says he has counseled doctors who witnessed COVID-related suffering and death at work, then came home to a partner who didn’t believe that the pandemic was real.
Still, physicians reported that spending time with people they love and engaging in favorite activities helps them stay happy. “Spending time with pets” and “religious practice/prayer” were frequent “other” responses to the question, “What do you do to maintain happiness and mental health?” Seven in 10 physicians reported having some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs.
The majority of physicians (83%) are either married or living with a partner, with male physicians edging out their female peers (89% vs. 75%). Among married physicians, 8 in 10 physicians reported that their union is “good” or “very good.” The pandemic may have helped in this respect. Dr. Sotile says he’s heard physicians say that they’ve connected more with their families in the past 18 months. Specialists with the highest rates of happy marriages were otolaryngologists and immunologists (both 91%), followed closely by dermatologists, rheumatologists, and nephrologists (all 90%).
Among physicians balancing a medical career and parenthood, female physicians reported feeling conflicted more often than males (48% vs. 29%). Nicole A. Sparks, MD, an ob.gyn. and a health and lifestyle blogger, cites not being there for her kids as a source of stress. She notes that her two young children notice when she’s not there to help with homework, read bedtime stories, or make their dinner. “Mom guilt can definitely set in if I have to miss important events,” she says.
Work-life balance is an important, if elusive, goal for physicians, and not just females. Sixty percent of female doctors and 53% of male doctors said they would be willing to take a cut in pay if it meant more free time and a better work-life balance. Many doctors do manage to get away from work occasionally, with one-fifth of all physicians taking 5 or more weeks of vacation each year.
Seeking a ‘balanced life’
Alexis Polles, MD, medical director for the Professionals Resource Network, points out the importance of taking time for personal health and wellness. “When we work with professionals who have problems with mental health or substance abuse, they often don’t have a balanced life,” she says. “They are usually in a workaholic mindset and disregard their own needs.”
Few physicians seem to prioritize self-care, with a third indicating they “always” or “most of the time” spend enough time on their own health and wellness. But of those who do, males (38%) are more likely than females (27%) to spend enough time on their own health and wellness. Dr. Polles adds that exercising after a shift can help physicians better make the transition from professional to personal life. Though they did not report when they exercised, about a third of physicians reported doing so four or more times per week. Controlling weight is an issue as well, with 49% of male and 55% of female physicians saying they are currently trying to lose weight.
Of physicians who drink alcohol, about a third have three or more drinks per week. (The CDC defines “heavy drinking” as consuming 15 drinks or more per week for men and eight drinks or more per week for women.)
Of those surveyed, 92% say they do not regularly use cannabidiol or cannabis, and a mere 4% of respondents said they would use at least one of these substances if they were to become legal in their state.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CVS Caremark formulary change freezes out apixaban
Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.
The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.
In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.
PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.
Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.
“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.
Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.
“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”
Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.
“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”
Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.
The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.
The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.
Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”
The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.
Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.
In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.
During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”
The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.
“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.
In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.
The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.
PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.
One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.
The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.
In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.
PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.
Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.
“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.
Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.
“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”
Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.
“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”
Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.
The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.
The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.
Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”
The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.
Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.
In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.
During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”
The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.
“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.
In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.
The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.
PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.
One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients looking to refill a prescription for apixaban (Eliquis) through CVS Caremark may be in for a surprise following its decision to exclude the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) from its formulary starting Jan. 1.
The move leaves just one DOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), on CVS’ commercial formulary and is being assailed as the latest example of “nonmedical switching” used by health insurers to control costs.
In a letter to CVS Caremark backed by 14 provider and patient organizations, the nonprofit Partnership to Advance Cardiovascular Health (PACH) calls on the pharmacy chain to reverse its “dangerously disruptive” decision to force stable patients at high risk of cardiovascular events to switch anticoagulation, without an apparent option to be grandfathered into the new plan.
PACH president Dharmesh Patel, MD, Stern Cardiovascular Center, Memphis, called the formulary change “reckless and irresponsible, especially because the decision is not based in science and evidence, but on budgets. Patients and their health care providers, not insurance companies, need to be trusted to determine what medication is best,” he said in a statement.
Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of Baptist Health Paducah, Kentucky, said that, as chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardiovascular Team Section, he and other organizations have met with CVS Caremark medical leadership to advocate for patients and to understand the company’s perspective.
“The underlying driver is cost,” he told this news organization.
Current guidelines recommend DOACs in general for a variety of indications, including to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, but there are select instances where a particular DOAC might be more appropriate, he observed.
“Apixaban may be better for a patient with a history of GI bleeding because there’s less GI bleeding, but the guidelines don’t necessarily spell those things out,” Dr. Beavers said. “That’s where the clinician should advocate for their patient and, unfortunately, they are making their decision strictly based off the guidelines.”
Requests to speak with medical officers at CVS Caremark went unanswered, but its executive director of communications, Christina Peaslee, told this news organization that the formulary decision “maintains clinically appropriate, cost-effective prescription coverage” for its clients and members.
“Both the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society and 2021 CHEST guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for treatment of various cardiology conditions such as atrial fibrillation, but neither list a specific agent as preferred – showing that consensus clinical guidelines do not favor one over the other,” she said in an email. “Further, Xarelto has more FDA-approved indications than Eliquis (e.g., Xarelto is approved for a reduction in risk of major CV events in patients with CAD or PAD) in addition to all the same FDA indications as Eliquis.”
Ms. Peaslee pointed out that all formulary changes are evaluated by an external medical expert specializing in the disease state, followed by review and approval by an independent national Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee.
The decision to exclude apixaban is also limited to a “subset of commercial drug lists,” she said, although specifics on which plans and the number of affected patients were not forthcoming.
The choice of DOAC is a timely question in cardiology, with recent studies suggesting an advantage for apixaban over rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism, as well as reducing the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events in atrial fibrillation.
Ms. Peaslee said CVS Caremark closely monitors medical literature for relevant clinical trial data and that most clients allow reasonable formulary exceptions when justified. “This formulary exceptions process has been successfully used for changes of this type and allows patients to get a medication that is safe and effective, as determined by their prescriber.”
The company will also continue to provide “robust, personalized outreach to the small number of members who will need to switch to an alternative medication,” she added.
Dr. Beavers said negotiations with CVS are still in the early stages, but, in the meantime, the ACC is providing health care providers with tools, such as drug copay cards and electronic prior authorizations, to help ensure patients don’t have gaps in coverage.
In a Jan. 14 news release addressing the formulary change, ACC notes that a patient’s pharmacy can also request a one-time override when trying to fill a nonpreferred DOAC in January to buy time if switching medications with their clinician or requesting a formulary exception.
During discussions with CVS Caremark, it says the ACC and the American Society of Hematology “underscored the negative impacts of this decision on patients currently taking one of the nonpreferred DOACs and on those who have previously tried rivaroxaban and changed medications.”
The groups also highlighted difficulties with other prior authorization programs in terms of the need for dedicated staff and time away from direct patient care.
“The ACC and ASH will continue discussions with CVS Caremark regarding the burden on clinicians and the effect of the formulary decision on patient access,” the release says.
In its letter to CVS, PACH argues that the apixaban exclusion will disproportionately affect historically disadvantaged patients, leaving those who can least afford the change with limited options. Notably, no generic is available for either apixaban or rivaroxaban.
The group also highlights a 2019 national poll, in which nearly 40% of patients who had their medication switched were so frustrated that they stopped their medication altogether.
PACH has an online petition against nonmedical switching, which at press time had garnered 2,126 signatures.
One signee, Jan Griffin, who survived bilateral pulmonary embolisms, writes that she has been on Eliquis [apixaban] successfully since her hospital discharge. “Now, as of midnight, Caremark apparently knows better than my hematologist as to what blood thinner is better for me and will no longer cover my Eliquis prescription. This is criminal, immoral, and unethical. #StopTheSwitch.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study finds genetic factor for COVID smell and taste loss
, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics
The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.
“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.
“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”
Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.
The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.
The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.
The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.
The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.
“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics
The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.
“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.
“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”
Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.
The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.
The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.
The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.
The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.
“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Genetics
The finding could eventually help the 1.6 million people in the United States who still can’t smell or have had a change in their ability to smell more than 6 months after getting the coronavirus. The exact cause related to COVID-19 is still unknown, but researchers believe it could be because of damage in a part of the nose called the olfactory epithelium.
“How we get from infection to smell loss remains unclear,” Justin Turner, MD, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told NBC News. Dr. Turner was not part of the research team.
“Early data suggest that supporting cells of the olfactory epithelium are the ones mostly being infected by the virus, and presumably this leads to the death of the neurons themselves,” he said. “But we don’t really, really know why and when that happens, and why it seems to preferentially happen in certain individuals.”
Researchers at 23andMe, a genomics and biotechnology company, did the study as part of a larger COVID-19 project, which includes people in the United States and the United Kingdom. They analyzed data from nearly 70,000 people who took online surveys after receiving a positive coronavirus test. Among those, 68% reported a loss of smell or taste as a symptom.
The study team compared the genetic differences between those who lost their sense of smell and taste and those who didn’t. They found that a location near two olfactory genes – UGT2A1 and UGT2A2 – is associated with COVID-19 loss of smell and taste. The genetic risk factor makes it 11% more likely for a person with COVID-19 to lose their sense of smell or taste.
The research team also found that women were 11% more likely than men to report a loss of smell and taste. About 73% of those who reported a loss of smell and taste were ages 26-35.
The researchers aren’t sure how the genes are involved, though they suspect that infected cells could lead to smell loss. Typically, the genes are expressed in tissue inside the nose involved with smell and play a role in processing things that have an odor. To use the findings, researchers need to learn more about the genes, how they are expressed, and what their functions are, NBC News reported.
The findings could help lead to treatments. Other research has shown that the loss of taste and smell is related to a “failure to protect the sensory cells of the nose and tongue from viral infection,” Danielle Reed, PhD, associate director of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, told NBC News. She was not part of the research team but studies person-to-person differences in the loss of these senses because of COVID-19.
“This study suggests a different direction,” she said. “The pathways that break down the chemicals that cause taste and smell in the first place might be over or underactive, reducing or distorting the ability to taste and smell.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE GENETICS
Fourth vaccine shot less effective against Omicron, Israeli study says
, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.
The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.
“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.
“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.
In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.
Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.
“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”
Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.
Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.
The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.
“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.
As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.
On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.
“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.
The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.
“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.
“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.
In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.
Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.
“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”
Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.
Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.
The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.
“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.
As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.
On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.
“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to new research at an Israeli hospital.
The preliminary results, released on Jan. 17, challenge the idea of giving a second booster dose to slow the spread of the coronavirus, according to USA Today.
“Despite increased antibody levels, the fourth vaccine only offers a partial defense against the virus,” Gili Regev-Yochay, MD, director of the hospital’s infection prevention and control units, told reporters.
“The vaccines, which were more effective against previous variants, offer less protection versus Omicron,” she said.
In a clinical trial, 274 medical workers at Sheba Medical Center near Tel Aviv received a fourth vaccine dose in December – 154 got the Pfizer vaccine and 120 got the Moderna vaccine – after previously getting three Pfizer shots.
Both groups received a boost in antibodies that was “slightly higher” than after the third shot, Dr. Regev-Yochay said. But when compared with a control group that didn’t receive the fourth dose, the extra boost didn’t prevent the spread of Omicron.
“We see many infected with Omicron who received the fourth dose,” Dr. Regev-Yochay said. “Granted, a bit less than in the control group, but still a lot of infections.”
Some public health officials in Israel say the campaign for fourth doses is still worthwhile, according to The Times of Israel. The vaccine still works well against the Alpha and Delta variants, Dr. Regev-Yochay said, and a fourth shot should go to older adults and those who face higher risks for severe COVID-19.
Hours after releasing the preliminary results, Sheba Medical Center published a statement calling for “continuing the vaccination drive for risk groups at this time, even though the vaccine doesn’t provide optimal protection against getting infected with the variant.” News outlets reported that the hospital was pressured into issuing the statement after Israel’s Health Ministry didn’t like the release of the early study results, The Times of Israel reported.
The second booster “returns the level of antibodies to what it was at the beginning of the third booster,” Nachman Ash, MD, director of Israel’s Health Ministry, told Channel 13 TV in Israel, according to The Associated Press.
“That has great importance, especially among the older population,” he said.
As of Sunday, more than 500,000 people in Israel had received fourth doses since the country began offering them last month to medical workers, immunocompromised patients, and people ages 60 years and older, the AP reported. At the same time, the country has faced a recent coronavirus surge that has led to record-breaking numbers of cases and rising hospitalizations.
On Tuesday, the Israeli government said it would shorten the mandatory quarantine period from 7 days to 5 days, the AP reported.
“This decision will enable us to continue safeguarding public health on the one hand and to keep the economy going at this time on the other, even though it is difficult, so that we can get through this wave safely,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Feds’ website for free at-home COVID tests launches day early
The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.
The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.
On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.
Here’s what we know so far.
How do I order my free tests?
Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.
What information do I need to order the tests?
You only need your name and home mailing address.
There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.
What if someone needs help ordering the tests?
There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.
What tests will be available?
There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the brand you order as part of this program.”
How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?
Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.
But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.
How many can I order?
There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.
For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.
Is this a one-time opportunity?
The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.
The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.
When should people use a rapid at-home test?
The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:
- If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
- At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
- If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.
Are at-home rapid tests accurate?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.
Is the website designed to handle high demand?
After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.
The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.
The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.
All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.
The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.
On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.
Here’s what we know so far.
How do I order my free tests?
Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.
What information do I need to order the tests?
You only need your name and home mailing address.
There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.
What if someone needs help ordering the tests?
There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.
What tests will be available?
There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the brand you order as part of this program.”
How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?
Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.
But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.
How many can I order?
There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.
For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.
Is this a one-time opportunity?
The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.
The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.
When should people use a rapid at-home test?
The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:
- If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
- At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
- If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.
Are at-home rapid tests accurate?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.
Is the website designed to handle high demand?
After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.
The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.
The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.
All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.
The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.
On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.
Here’s what we know so far.
How do I order my free tests?
Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.
What information do I need to order the tests?
You only need your name and home mailing address.
There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.
What if someone needs help ordering the tests?
There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.
What tests will be available?
There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the brand you order as part of this program.”
How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?
Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.
But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.
How many can I order?
There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.
For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.
Is this a one-time opportunity?
The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.
The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.
When should people use a rapid at-home test?
The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:
- If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
- At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
- If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.
Are at-home rapid tests accurate?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.
Is the website designed to handle high demand?
After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.
The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.
The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.
All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.