Covid ICYMI

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on medRxiv.org as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• The study results suggest that obesity may accelerate waning of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and increased breakthrough infections with COVID-19.
• The findings documented evidence of reduced neutralizing antibody capacity 6 months after primary vaccination in people with severe obesity.
• This was a large study involving about more than 3.5 million people who had received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including more than 650,000 with obesity.

Why this matters

• Obesity is associated with comorbidities that independently increase the risk for severe COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
• The authors concluded that additional or more frequent booster doses are likely to be required to maintain protection among people with obesity against COVID-19.

Study design

• Prospective longitudinal study of the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infections and immune responses in a cohort of more than 3.5 million adults from a Scottish healthcare database who received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccine. The data came from the study, centered at the University of Edinburgh.
• About 16% had obesity with a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m², and an additional 3% had severe obesity with a BMI of 40 or greater.
• Although not specified in this preprint, another said that the vaccines administered in Scotland have been the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca formulations.

Key results

• Between Sept. 14, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 10,983 people (0.3% of the total cohort; 6.0 events per 1,000 person-years) had severe COVID-19, consisting of 9,733 who were hospitalized and 2,207 who died (957 of those hospitalized also died).
• People with obesity or severe obesity were at higher risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 after both a second and third (booster) dose of vaccine.
• Compared with those with normal weight, those with severe obesity (BMI higher than 40) were at significantly increased risk for severe COVID-19 after a second vaccine dose, with an adjusted rate ratio 1.76, whereas those with standard obesity (BMI, 30-40) were at a modestly but significantly increased risk with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.11.
• Breakthrough infections after the second dose for those with severe obesity, obesity, and normal weight occurred on average at 10 weeks, 15 weeks, and 20 weeks, respectively.
• Interaction testing showed that vaccine effectiveness significantly diminished over time across BMI groups, and protection waned more rapidly as BMI increased.
• Results from immunophenotyping studies run in a subgroup of several dozen subjects with severe obesity or normal weight showed significant decrements in the robustness of antibody responses in those with severe obesity 6 months after a second or third vaccine dose.

Limitations

• The authors did not specify any limitations.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• One author received funding from Wellcome.

This is a summary of a preprint research study , “Accelerated waning of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in obesity,” published by researchers primarily at the University of Cambridge (England), on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.



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

Among scientists, the existence of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents has been the subject of debate. Two published studies have drawn attention to long COVID-19 signs and symptoms in these patients.

Published by a Mexican multidisciplinary group in Scientific Reports, the first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. It identified mood symptoms as the most prevalent clinical manifestations of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents. These symptoms included sadness, tension, anger, depression, and anxiety (16.50%); fatigue (9.66%); and sleep disorders (8.42%).

The second study, LongCOVIDKidsDK, was conducted in Denmark. It compared 11,000 children younger than 14 years who had tested positive for COVID-19 with 33,000 children who had no history of COVID-19. The study was published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.
 

Definitions are changing

In their meta-analysis, the researchers estimated the prevalence and counted signs and symptoms of long COVID-19, as defined by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long COVID-19 was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms more than 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For search terms, the researchers used “COVID-19,” “COVID,” “SARSCOV-2,” “coronavirus,” “long COVID,” “postCOVID,” “PASC,” “long-haulers,” “prolonged,” “post-acute,” “persistent,” “convalescent,” “sequelae,” and “postviral.”

Of the 8,373 citations returned by the search as of Feb. 10, 2022, 21 prospective studies, 2 of them on preprint servers, met the authors’ selection criteria. Those studies included a total of 80,071 children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

In the meta-analysis, the prevalence of long COVID-19 among children and adolescents was reported to be 25.24% (95% confidence interval, 18.17-33.02; I2, 99.61%), regardless of whether the case had been asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, or serious. For patients who had been hospitalized, the prevalence was 29.19% (95% CI, 17.83-41.98; I2, 80.84%).

These numbers, while striking, are not the focus of the study, according to first author Sandra Lopez-Leon, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. “It’s important that we don’t focus on that 25%,” she said in an interview. “It’s a disease that we’re learning about, we’re at a time when the definitions are still changing, and, depending on when it is measured, a different number will be given. The message we want to give is that long COVID-19 exists, it’s happening in children and adolescents, and patients need this recognition. And also to show that it can affect the whole body.”

The study showed that the children and adolescents who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection were at higher risk of subsequent long dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, or fever, compared with control persons.

In total, in the studies that were included, more than 40 long-term clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 in the pediatric population were identified.

The most common symptoms among children aged 0-3 years were mood swings, skin rashes, and stomachaches. In 4- to 11-year-olds, the most common symptoms were mood swings, trouble remembering or concentrating, and skin rashes. In 12- to 14-year-olds, they were fatigue, mood swings, and trouble remembering or concentrating. These data are based on parent responses.

The list of signs and symptoms also includes headache, respiratory symptoms, cognitive symptoms (such as decreased concentration, learning difficulties, confusion, and memory loss), loss of appetite, and smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, hyperosmia, parosmia, and phantom smell).

In the studies, the prevalence of the following symptoms was less than 5%: hyperhidrosis, chest pain, dizziness, cough, myalgia/arthralgia, changes in body weight, taste disorder, otalgia (tinnitus, ear pain, vertigo), ophthalmologic symptoms (conjunctivitis, dry eye, blurred vision, photophobia, pain), dermatologic symptoms (dry skin, itchy skin, rashes, hives, hair loss), urinary symptoms, abdominal pain, throat pain, chest tightness, variations in heart rate, palpitations, constipation, dysphonia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting/nausea, menstrual changes, neurological abnormalities, speech disorders, and dysphagia.

The authors made it clear that the frequency and severity of these symptoms can fluctuate from one patient to another.

“The meta-analysis is important because it brings together 21 studies selected from more than 8,000 articles – and in them, a large number of children – to study the most common manifestations of long COVID-19,” Gabriela Ensinck, MD, head of the infectious diseases department at the Víctor J. Vilela Children’s Hospital in Rosario, Argentina, told this news organization. Dr. Ensinck did not participate in the study. “The important thing here is that long COVID-19 exists in pediatrics. And that it is a prolongation of signs or symptoms over time, a time for which there is no single definition.”

“It’s a snapshot of all the symptoms that can remain after COVID-19,” Dr. Lopez-Leon explained. “The meta-analysis seeks to see if there’s an association between having had COVID-19 and having the symptoms, but at no time does it speak of causality.”

The prevalence of symptoms largely depends on the time since the onset of acute COVID-19. Most symptoms improve over time. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis, the follow-up time varied between 1 and 13 months. It is important to understand what symptoms are associated with each period after the onset of infection, the authors said.
 

Danish parent survey

The Danish study LongCOVIDKidsDK followed the World Health Organization criteria for long COVID-19 and included children and adolescents aged 0-14 years who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 and who experienced symptoms that lasted at least 2 months.

Between July 20, 2021, and Sept. 15, 2021, a questionnaire was sent to 38,152 case patients and 147,212 control persons. Of this group, 10,997 (28.8%) case patients and 33,016 (22.4%) control persons answered the survey.

Children who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms than children who had never been diagnosed. Approximately one-third of children with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test experienced symptoms that were not present before infection. Children who experienced long-lasting symptoms included 40% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and 27% of control persons aged 0-3 years, 38% of case patients and 34% of control persons aged 4-11 years, and 46% of case patients and 41% of control persons aged 12-14 years.

Interestingly, those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported fewer psychological and social problems than those in the control group. Among the oldest (aged 12-14 years), quality of life scores were higher and anxiety scores were lower for those who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

More information needed

Given the diversity of symptoms in the meta-analysis and the LongCOVIDKidsDK study, a multidisciplinary approach is imperative. Dr. Lopez-Leon suggests that there is a need to raise awareness among parents, clinicians, researchers, and the health system about the conditions that can occur after COVID-19. Clinicians must better understand the sequelae to provide targeted care and treatment. The authors of the Danish study recommend establishing clinics for long COVID-19 with multispecialty care.

Maren J. Heilskov Rytter, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Copenhagen, wrote an editorial in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health about the Danish study. Until it is clarified whether SARS-CoV-2 does indeed cause persistent symptoms, she wrote, “it seems excessive and premature to establish specific multidisciplinary clinics for children with long COVID-19.”

Dr. Rytter highlighted the difficulty of interpreting LongCOVIDKidsDK data, owing to recall bias, the failure to exclude other causes of symptoms in the cases analyzed, and the number of symptoms in the control persons. In addition, the data analyzed in Denmark are of limited clinical relevance, she said, given a greater presence of mild symptoms and, paradoxically, a higher quality of life.

She concluded, “In the majority of children with nonspecific symptoms after COVID-19, the symptoms presented are more likely to have been caused by something other than COVID-19, and if they are related to COVID-19, they are likely to go away over time.”

Dr. Ensinck, who is coauthor of the Argentine Ministry of Health’s guide for long COVID-19 monitoring for children and adolescents and who represented the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, highlighted another aspect of the problem. “What should be taken into account in these data is to see how much the confinement contributed. Children are the ones who suffered the most in the period in which schools were closed; they could not meet their peers, they had sick relatives, they felt fear. … all this must be taken into account.”

There is as yet no agreement on how to define and diagnose long COVID-19 in adults, a population that has been studied more closely. Part of the problem is that long COVID-19 has been linked to more than 200 symptoms, which can range in severity from inconvenient to debilitating, can last for months or years, and can recur, sometimes months after apparent recovery. Thus, there are still disparate answers to basic questions about the syndrome’s frequency and its effects on vaccination, reinfection, and the latest variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This article has been translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Among scientists, the existence of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents has been the subject of debate. Two published studies have drawn attention to long COVID-19 signs and symptoms in these patients.

Published by a Mexican multidisciplinary group in Scientific Reports, the first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. It identified mood symptoms as the most prevalent clinical manifestations of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents. These symptoms included sadness, tension, anger, depression, and anxiety (16.50%); fatigue (9.66%); and sleep disorders (8.42%).

The second study, LongCOVIDKidsDK, was conducted in Denmark. It compared 11,000 children younger than 14 years who had tested positive for COVID-19 with 33,000 children who had no history of COVID-19. The study was published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.
 

Definitions are changing

In their meta-analysis, the researchers estimated the prevalence and counted signs and symptoms of long COVID-19, as defined by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long COVID-19 was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms more than 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For search terms, the researchers used “COVID-19,” “COVID,” “SARSCOV-2,” “coronavirus,” “long COVID,” “postCOVID,” “PASC,” “long-haulers,” “prolonged,” “post-acute,” “persistent,” “convalescent,” “sequelae,” and “postviral.”

Of the 8,373 citations returned by the search as of Feb. 10, 2022, 21 prospective studies, 2 of them on preprint servers, met the authors’ selection criteria. Those studies included a total of 80,071 children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

In the meta-analysis, the prevalence of long COVID-19 among children and adolescents was reported to be 25.24% (95% confidence interval, 18.17-33.02; I2, 99.61%), regardless of whether the case had been asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, or serious. For patients who had been hospitalized, the prevalence was 29.19% (95% CI, 17.83-41.98; I2, 80.84%).

These numbers, while striking, are not the focus of the study, according to first author Sandra Lopez-Leon, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. “It’s important that we don’t focus on that 25%,” she said in an interview. “It’s a disease that we’re learning about, we’re at a time when the definitions are still changing, and, depending on when it is measured, a different number will be given. The message we want to give is that long COVID-19 exists, it’s happening in children and adolescents, and patients need this recognition. And also to show that it can affect the whole body.”

The study showed that the children and adolescents who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection were at higher risk of subsequent long dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, or fever, compared with control persons.

In total, in the studies that were included, more than 40 long-term clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 in the pediatric population were identified.

The most common symptoms among children aged 0-3 years were mood swings, skin rashes, and stomachaches. In 4- to 11-year-olds, the most common symptoms were mood swings, trouble remembering or concentrating, and skin rashes. In 12- to 14-year-olds, they were fatigue, mood swings, and trouble remembering or concentrating. These data are based on parent responses.

The list of signs and symptoms also includes headache, respiratory symptoms, cognitive symptoms (such as decreased concentration, learning difficulties, confusion, and memory loss), loss of appetite, and smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, hyperosmia, parosmia, and phantom smell).

In the studies, the prevalence of the following symptoms was less than 5%: hyperhidrosis, chest pain, dizziness, cough, myalgia/arthralgia, changes in body weight, taste disorder, otalgia (tinnitus, ear pain, vertigo), ophthalmologic symptoms (conjunctivitis, dry eye, blurred vision, photophobia, pain), dermatologic symptoms (dry skin, itchy skin, rashes, hives, hair loss), urinary symptoms, abdominal pain, throat pain, chest tightness, variations in heart rate, palpitations, constipation, dysphonia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting/nausea, menstrual changes, neurological abnormalities, speech disorders, and dysphagia.

The authors made it clear that the frequency and severity of these symptoms can fluctuate from one patient to another.

“The meta-analysis is important because it brings together 21 studies selected from more than 8,000 articles – and in them, a large number of children – to study the most common manifestations of long COVID-19,” Gabriela Ensinck, MD, head of the infectious diseases department at the Víctor J. Vilela Children’s Hospital in Rosario, Argentina, told this news organization. Dr. Ensinck did not participate in the study. “The important thing here is that long COVID-19 exists in pediatrics. And that it is a prolongation of signs or symptoms over time, a time for which there is no single definition.”

“It’s a snapshot of all the symptoms that can remain after COVID-19,” Dr. Lopez-Leon explained. “The meta-analysis seeks to see if there’s an association between having had COVID-19 and having the symptoms, but at no time does it speak of causality.”

The prevalence of symptoms largely depends on the time since the onset of acute COVID-19. Most symptoms improve over time. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis, the follow-up time varied between 1 and 13 months. It is important to understand what symptoms are associated with each period after the onset of infection, the authors said.
 

Danish parent survey

The Danish study LongCOVIDKidsDK followed the World Health Organization criteria for long COVID-19 and included children and adolescents aged 0-14 years who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 and who experienced symptoms that lasted at least 2 months.

Between July 20, 2021, and Sept. 15, 2021, a questionnaire was sent to 38,152 case patients and 147,212 control persons. Of this group, 10,997 (28.8%) case patients and 33,016 (22.4%) control persons answered the survey.

Children who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms than children who had never been diagnosed. Approximately one-third of children with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test experienced symptoms that were not present before infection. Children who experienced long-lasting symptoms included 40% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and 27% of control persons aged 0-3 years, 38% of case patients and 34% of control persons aged 4-11 years, and 46% of case patients and 41% of control persons aged 12-14 years.

Interestingly, those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported fewer psychological and social problems than those in the control group. Among the oldest (aged 12-14 years), quality of life scores were higher and anxiety scores were lower for those who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

More information needed

Given the diversity of symptoms in the meta-analysis and the LongCOVIDKidsDK study, a multidisciplinary approach is imperative. Dr. Lopez-Leon suggests that there is a need to raise awareness among parents, clinicians, researchers, and the health system about the conditions that can occur after COVID-19. Clinicians must better understand the sequelae to provide targeted care and treatment. The authors of the Danish study recommend establishing clinics for long COVID-19 with multispecialty care.

Maren J. Heilskov Rytter, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Copenhagen, wrote an editorial in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health about the Danish study. Until it is clarified whether SARS-CoV-2 does indeed cause persistent symptoms, she wrote, “it seems excessive and premature to establish specific multidisciplinary clinics for children with long COVID-19.”

Dr. Rytter highlighted the difficulty of interpreting LongCOVIDKidsDK data, owing to recall bias, the failure to exclude other causes of symptoms in the cases analyzed, and the number of symptoms in the control persons. In addition, the data analyzed in Denmark are of limited clinical relevance, she said, given a greater presence of mild symptoms and, paradoxically, a higher quality of life.

She concluded, “In the majority of children with nonspecific symptoms after COVID-19, the symptoms presented are more likely to have been caused by something other than COVID-19, and if they are related to COVID-19, they are likely to go away over time.”

Dr. Ensinck, who is coauthor of the Argentine Ministry of Health’s guide for long COVID-19 monitoring for children and adolescents and who represented the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, highlighted another aspect of the problem. “What should be taken into account in these data is to see how much the confinement contributed. Children are the ones who suffered the most in the period in which schools were closed; they could not meet their peers, they had sick relatives, they felt fear. … all this must be taken into account.”

There is as yet no agreement on how to define and diagnose long COVID-19 in adults, a population that has been studied more closely. Part of the problem is that long COVID-19 has been linked to more than 200 symptoms, which can range in severity from inconvenient to debilitating, can last for months or years, and can recur, sometimes months after apparent recovery. Thus, there are still disparate answers to basic questions about the syndrome’s frequency and its effects on vaccination, reinfection, and the latest variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This article has been translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Among scientists, the existence of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents has been the subject of debate. Two published studies have drawn attention to long COVID-19 signs and symptoms in these patients.

Published by a Mexican multidisciplinary group in Scientific Reports, the first study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. It identified mood symptoms as the most prevalent clinical manifestations of long COVID-19 in children and adolescents. These symptoms included sadness, tension, anger, depression, and anxiety (16.50%); fatigue (9.66%); and sleep disorders (8.42%).

The second study, LongCOVIDKidsDK, was conducted in Denmark. It compared 11,000 children younger than 14 years who had tested positive for COVID-19 with 33,000 children who had no history of COVID-19. The study was published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health.
 

Definitions are changing

In their meta-analysis, the researchers estimated the prevalence and counted signs and symptoms of long COVID-19, as defined by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long COVID-19 was defined as the presence of one or more symptoms more than 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. For search terms, the researchers used “COVID-19,” “COVID,” “SARSCOV-2,” “coronavirus,” “long COVID,” “postCOVID,” “PASC,” “long-haulers,” “prolonged,” “post-acute,” “persistent,” “convalescent,” “sequelae,” and “postviral.”

Of the 8,373 citations returned by the search as of Feb. 10, 2022, 21 prospective studies, 2 of them on preprint servers, met the authors’ selection criteria. Those studies included a total of 80,071 children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

In the meta-analysis, the prevalence of long COVID-19 among children and adolescents was reported to be 25.24% (95% confidence interval, 18.17-33.02; I2, 99.61%), regardless of whether the case had been asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, or serious. For patients who had been hospitalized, the prevalence was 29.19% (95% CI, 17.83-41.98; I2, 80.84%).

These numbers, while striking, are not the focus of the study, according to first author Sandra Lopez-Leon, MD, PhD, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. “It’s important that we don’t focus on that 25%,” she said in an interview. “It’s a disease that we’re learning about, we’re at a time when the definitions are still changing, and, depending on when it is measured, a different number will be given. The message we want to give is that long COVID-19 exists, it’s happening in children and adolescents, and patients need this recognition. And also to show that it can affect the whole body.”

The study showed that the children and adolescents who presented with SARS-CoV-2 infection were at higher risk of subsequent long dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, or fever, compared with control persons.

In total, in the studies that were included, more than 40 long-term clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 in the pediatric population were identified.

The most common symptoms among children aged 0-3 years were mood swings, skin rashes, and stomachaches. In 4- to 11-year-olds, the most common symptoms were mood swings, trouble remembering or concentrating, and skin rashes. In 12- to 14-year-olds, they were fatigue, mood swings, and trouble remembering or concentrating. These data are based on parent responses.

The list of signs and symptoms also includes headache, respiratory symptoms, cognitive symptoms (such as decreased concentration, learning difficulties, confusion, and memory loss), loss of appetite, and smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, hyperosmia, parosmia, and phantom smell).

In the studies, the prevalence of the following symptoms was less than 5%: hyperhidrosis, chest pain, dizziness, cough, myalgia/arthralgia, changes in body weight, taste disorder, otalgia (tinnitus, ear pain, vertigo), ophthalmologic symptoms (conjunctivitis, dry eye, blurred vision, photophobia, pain), dermatologic symptoms (dry skin, itchy skin, rashes, hives, hair loss), urinary symptoms, abdominal pain, throat pain, chest tightness, variations in heart rate, palpitations, constipation, dysphonia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting/nausea, menstrual changes, neurological abnormalities, speech disorders, and dysphagia.

The authors made it clear that the frequency and severity of these symptoms can fluctuate from one patient to another.

“The meta-analysis is important because it brings together 21 studies selected from more than 8,000 articles – and in them, a large number of children – to study the most common manifestations of long COVID-19,” Gabriela Ensinck, MD, head of the infectious diseases department at the Víctor J. Vilela Children’s Hospital in Rosario, Argentina, told this news organization. Dr. Ensinck did not participate in the study. “The important thing here is that long COVID-19 exists in pediatrics. And that it is a prolongation of signs or symptoms over time, a time for which there is no single definition.”

“It’s a snapshot of all the symptoms that can remain after COVID-19,” Dr. Lopez-Leon explained. “The meta-analysis seeks to see if there’s an association between having had COVID-19 and having the symptoms, but at no time does it speak of causality.”

The prevalence of symptoms largely depends on the time since the onset of acute COVID-19. Most symptoms improve over time. In the studies that were included in the meta-analysis, the follow-up time varied between 1 and 13 months. It is important to understand what symptoms are associated with each period after the onset of infection, the authors said.
 

Danish parent survey

The Danish study LongCOVIDKidsDK followed the World Health Organization criteria for long COVID-19 and included children and adolescents aged 0-14 years who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 and who experienced symptoms that lasted at least 2 months.

Between July 20, 2021, and Sept. 15, 2021, a questionnaire was sent to 38,152 case patients and 147,212 control persons. Of this group, 10,997 (28.8%) case patients and 33,016 (22.4%) control persons answered the survey.

Children who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms than children who had never been diagnosed. Approximately one-third of children with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test experienced symptoms that were not present before infection. Children who experienced long-lasting symptoms included 40% of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and 27% of control persons aged 0-3 years, 38% of case patients and 34% of control persons aged 4-11 years, and 46% of case patients and 41% of control persons aged 12-14 years.

Interestingly, those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported fewer psychological and social problems than those in the control group. Among the oldest (aged 12-14 years), quality of life scores were higher and anxiety scores were lower for those who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
 

More information needed

Given the diversity of symptoms in the meta-analysis and the LongCOVIDKidsDK study, a multidisciplinary approach is imperative. Dr. Lopez-Leon suggests that there is a need to raise awareness among parents, clinicians, researchers, and the health system about the conditions that can occur after COVID-19. Clinicians must better understand the sequelae to provide targeted care and treatment. The authors of the Danish study recommend establishing clinics for long COVID-19 with multispecialty care.

Maren J. Heilskov Rytter, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Copenhagen, wrote an editorial in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health about the Danish study. Until it is clarified whether SARS-CoV-2 does indeed cause persistent symptoms, she wrote, “it seems excessive and premature to establish specific multidisciplinary clinics for children with long COVID-19.”

Dr. Rytter highlighted the difficulty of interpreting LongCOVIDKidsDK data, owing to recall bias, the failure to exclude other causes of symptoms in the cases analyzed, and the number of symptoms in the control persons. In addition, the data analyzed in Denmark are of limited clinical relevance, she said, given a greater presence of mild symptoms and, paradoxically, a higher quality of life.

She concluded, “In the majority of children with nonspecific symptoms after COVID-19, the symptoms presented are more likely to have been caused by something other than COVID-19, and if they are related to COVID-19, they are likely to go away over time.”

Dr. Ensinck, who is coauthor of the Argentine Ministry of Health’s guide for long COVID-19 monitoring for children and adolescents and who represented the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, highlighted another aspect of the problem. “What should be taken into account in these data is to see how much the confinement contributed. Children are the ones who suffered the most in the period in which schools were closed; they could not meet their peers, they had sick relatives, they felt fear. … all this must be taken into account.”

There is as yet no agreement on how to define and diagnose long COVID-19 in adults, a population that has been studied more closely. Part of the problem is that long COVID-19 has been linked to more than 200 symptoms, which can range in severity from inconvenient to debilitating, can last for months or years, and can recur, sometimes months after apparent recovery. Thus, there are still disparate answers to basic questions about the syndrome’s frequency and its effects on vaccination, reinfection, and the latest variant of SARS-CoV-2.

This article has been translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests that viral antigen persistence in the gut may contribute to post-acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Postacute COVID-19 syndrome is now understood to be a multiorgan condition with symptoms that may include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and pain. Poor baseline health and severe acute infection are risk factors for the condition, but nonhospitalized illness can also lead to persistent symptoms.

Researchers found that nearly two-thirds of IBD patients had persistence of the antigen in infected tissues up to 8 months after a mild (nonhospitalized) acute COVID-19 infection. The study is the first to tie gut antigen persistence to post-acute COVID symptoms, and the results imply that the antigen may lead to immune perturbation and ongoing symptoms.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses the membrane-bound angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 to gain entry into cells, which is expressed in the brush border enterocytes, as well as elsewhere in the body.

Previous research using intestinal epithelial organoids confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting the human epithelium and that the virus can be detected in anal swabs long after it is cleared from nasal passages.

One potential explanation is viral immune perturbation or inflammatory tissue injury. Supporting evidence includes neural accumulation of memory T cells in patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms such as malaise and depression, and similar changes are seen with age-related immune senescence and tissue injury. Hyperactivated B and T cells, as well as other innate immune cells, have also been linked to postacute COVID-19, as has heightened expression of proinflammatory cytokines.

To explore the potential role of persistent viral antigens, the researchers gathered biopsies during upper- and lower-gastrointestinal endoscopy in 46 patients with IBD whose prior COVID-19 infection (mean, 7.3 months previous) had been confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and who were seen at the IBD outpatient unit of the investigators’ institution. In all, 43.5% of patients were female, and the average age was 44.67 years. Overall, 67.4% had been diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, 28.3% with ulcerative colitis, and 4.3% had unclassified IBD; 23.9% had a history of exposure to anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy. Among patients in the study, 32 of the patients tested positive for mucosal SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and there was no association between the presence of viral RNA and IBD type.

The researchers found that 52%-70% of patients had antigen persistence in any gut segment, as measured by nucleocapsid immunofluorescence or expression of one of four viral transcripts. They detected persistence of the nucleocapsid in epithelial cells and CD8+ T cells. Viral antigens persisted in patients with and without exposure to immunosuppressive therapy, and there was no association with antigen persistence and severity of acute COVID-19 infection or the presence of inflammation at the time of the endoscopy.

The researchers believed that the persistent viral antigen reflects incomplete clearance from the original infection rather than a latent or persistent infection because they could not replicate the virus in biopsy samples. Most biopsies within a patient produced some, but not all, of the viral transcripts tested. The authors suggest that immunosuppressive therapy may lead to incomplete viral clearance. Some patients lacked humoral nucleocapsid IgG antibodies, especially among those with gut antigen persistence.

In fact, only patients with gut viral RNA persistence had symptoms of postacute COVID. “This observation strongly argues for a role of viral antigen persistence in postacute COVID-19 and it appears plausible that SARS-CoV-2 antigen persistence, possibly in infected tissues beyond the gut, could impact host immune responses underlying the postacute COVID-19 syndrome,” the researchers wrote.

There is precedent for such a phenomenon in influenza. Mouse models have shown that ineffective clearance can influence adaptive immune responses and memory T-cell formation in lymph nodes of the lung. Another report found that COVID-19 pneumonia survivors have persistent changes to pulmonary CD8+ T cells.

The study is limited by its small sample size and a lack of a replication cohort. The study was also conducted in IBD patients because the researchers believed they were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection, although the researchers note that viral antigen persistence has been observed 2 months after recovery from COVID-19 in patients without IBD or exposure to immunosuppressants.

The researchers call for studies in patients without IBD to determine whether viral antigen persistence is a key mechanism in postacute COVID-19.

The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests that viral antigen persistence in the gut may contribute to post-acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Postacute COVID-19 syndrome is now understood to be a multiorgan condition with symptoms that may include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and pain. Poor baseline health and severe acute infection are risk factors for the condition, but nonhospitalized illness can also lead to persistent symptoms.

Researchers found that nearly two-thirds of IBD patients had persistence of the antigen in infected tissues up to 8 months after a mild (nonhospitalized) acute COVID-19 infection. The study is the first to tie gut antigen persistence to post-acute COVID symptoms, and the results imply that the antigen may lead to immune perturbation and ongoing symptoms.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses the membrane-bound angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 to gain entry into cells, which is expressed in the brush border enterocytes, as well as elsewhere in the body.

Previous research using intestinal epithelial organoids confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting the human epithelium and that the virus can be detected in anal swabs long after it is cleared from nasal passages.

One potential explanation is viral immune perturbation or inflammatory tissue injury. Supporting evidence includes neural accumulation of memory T cells in patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms such as malaise and depression, and similar changes are seen with age-related immune senescence and tissue injury. Hyperactivated B and T cells, as well as other innate immune cells, have also been linked to postacute COVID-19, as has heightened expression of proinflammatory cytokines.

To explore the potential role of persistent viral antigens, the researchers gathered biopsies during upper- and lower-gastrointestinal endoscopy in 46 patients with IBD whose prior COVID-19 infection (mean, 7.3 months previous) had been confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and who were seen at the IBD outpatient unit of the investigators’ institution. In all, 43.5% of patients were female, and the average age was 44.67 years. Overall, 67.4% had been diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, 28.3% with ulcerative colitis, and 4.3% had unclassified IBD; 23.9% had a history of exposure to anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy. Among patients in the study, 32 of the patients tested positive for mucosal SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and there was no association between the presence of viral RNA and IBD type.

The researchers found that 52%-70% of patients had antigen persistence in any gut segment, as measured by nucleocapsid immunofluorescence or expression of one of four viral transcripts. They detected persistence of the nucleocapsid in epithelial cells and CD8+ T cells. Viral antigens persisted in patients with and without exposure to immunosuppressive therapy, and there was no association with antigen persistence and severity of acute COVID-19 infection or the presence of inflammation at the time of the endoscopy.

The researchers believed that the persistent viral antigen reflects incomplete clearance from the original infection rather than a latent or persistent infection because they could not replicate the virus in biopsy samples. Most biopsies within a patient produced some, but not all, of the viral transcripts tested. The authors suggest that immunosuppressive therapy may lead to incomplete viral clearance. Some patients lacked humoral nucleocapsid IgG antibodies, especially among those with gut antigen persistence.

In fact, only patients with gut viral RNA persistence had symptoms of postacute COVID. “This observation strongly argues for a role of viral antigen persistence in postacute COVID-19 and it appears plausible that SARS-CoV-2 antigen persistence, possibly in infected tissues beyond the gut, could impact host immune responses underlying the postacute COVID-19 syndrome,” the researchers wrote.

There is precedent for such a phenomenon in influenza. Mouse models have shown that ineffective clearance can influence adaptive immune responses and memory T-cell formation in lymph nodes of the lung. Another report found that COVID-19 pneumonia survivors have persistent changes to pulmonary CD8+ T cells.

The study is limited by its small sample size and a lack of a replication cohort. The study was also conducted in IBD patients because the researchers believed they were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection, although the researchers note that viral antigen persistence has been observed 2 months after recovery from COVID-19 in patients without IBD or exposure to immunosuppressants.

The researchers call for studies in patients without IBD to determine whether viral antigen persistence is a key mechanism in postacute COVID-19.

The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests that viral antigen persistence in the gut may contribute to post-acute COVID-19 syndrome.

Postacute COVID-19 syndrome is now understood to be a multiorgan condition with symptoms that may include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and pain. Poor baseline health and severe acute infection are risk factors for the condition, but nonhospitalized illness can also lead to persistent symptoms.

Researchers found that nearly two-thirds of IBD patients had persistence of the antigen in infected tissues up to 8 months after a mild (nonhospitalized) acute COVID-19 infection. The study is the first to tie gut antigen persistence to post-acute COVID symptoms, and the results imply that the antigen may lead to immune perturbation and ongoing symptoms.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses the membrane-bound angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 to gain entry into cells, which is expressed in the brush border enterocytes, as well as elsewhere in the body.

Previous research using intestinal epithelial organoids confirmed that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting the human epithelium and that the virus can be detected in anal swabs long after it is cleared from nasal passages.

One potential explanation is viral immune perturbation or inflammatory tissue injury. Supporting evidence includes neural accumulation of memory T cells in patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms such as malaise and depression, and similar changes are seen with age-related immune senescence and tissue injury. Hyperactivated B and T cells, as well as other innate immune cells, have also been linked to postacute COVID-19, as has heightened expression of proinflammatory cytokines.

To explore the potential role of persistent viral antigens, the researchers gathered biopsies during upper- and lower-gastrointestinal endoscopy in 46 patients with IBD whose prior COVID-19 infection (mean, 7.3 months previous) had been confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and who were seen at the IBD outpatient unit of the investigators’ institution. In all, 43.5% of patients were female, and the average age was 44.67 years. Overall, 67.4% had been diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, 28.3% with ulcerative colitis, and 4.3% had unclassified IBD; 23.9% had a history of exposure to anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy. Among patients in the study, 32 of the patients tested positive for mucosal SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and there was no association between the presence of viral RNA and IBD type.

The researchers found that 52%-70% of patients had antigen persistence in any gut segment, as measured by nucleocapsid immunofluorescence or expression of one of four viral transcripts. They detected persistence of the nucleocapsid in epithelial cells and CD8+ T cells. Viral antigens persisted in patients with and without exposure to immunosuppressive therapy, and there was no association with antigen persistence and severity of acute COVID-19 infection or the presence of inflammation at the time of the endoscopy.

The researchers believed that the persistent viral antigen reflects incomplete clearance from the original infection rather than a latent or persistent infection because they could not replicate the virus in biopsy samples. Most biopsies within a patient produced some, but not all, of the viral transcripts tested. The authors suggest that immunosuppressive therapy may lead to incomplete viral clearance. Some patients lacked humoral nucleocapsid IgG antibodies, especially among those with gut antigen persistence.

In fact, only patients with gut viral RNA persistence had symptoms of postacute COVID. “This observation strongly argues for a role of viral antigen persistence in postacute COVID-19 and it appears plausible that SARS-CoV-2 antigen persistence, possibly in infected tissues beyond the gut, could impact host immune responses underlying the postacute COVID-19 syndrome,” the researchers wrote.

There is precedent for such a phenomenon in influenza. Mouse models have shown that ineffective clearance can influence adaptive immune responses and memory T-cell formation in lymph nodes of the lung. Another report found that COVID-19 pneumonia survivors have persistent changes to pulmonary CD8+ T cells.

The study is limited by its small sample size and a lack of a replication cohort. The study was also conducted in IBD patients because the researchers believed they were at higher risk of COVID-19 infection, although the researchers note that viral antigen persistence has been observed 2 months after recovery from COVID-19 in patients without IBD or exposure to immunosuppressants.

The researchers call for studies in patients without IBD to determine whether viral antigen persistence is a key mechanism in postacute COVID-19.

The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

An experimental cancer drug could be promising for some people hospitalized with COVID-19, a new study shows.

The medication, called sabizabulin and given as a pill, reduced by half the risk of death among participants. It could be more effective than other drugs for those severely sick with COVID-19, The New York Times reports.

The manufacturer, Veru, is seeking emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients currently have only a few pharmaceutical options.

Sabizabulin blocks cells from building molecular cables that carry material from one part of a cell to another. It was created to fight cancer, because tumor cells need those cables (called microtubules) to grow quickly.

Researchers tried it against COVID-19 2 years ago, because viral replication also requires microtubules to bring pieces of new viruses together.

To participate in the small trial, patients had to be receiving oxygen or on a ventilator and at a high risk of dying from COVID-19, “with risk factors such as hypertension, advanced age or obesity,” the Times reported.

A total of 134 patients received the medicine; 70 got a placebo. Among those receiving sabizabulin, 20.2% died within 2 months; 45.1% of those who took the placebo died.

One infectious disease expert told the Times that the high mortality rate of those on the placebo could mean the study was too small to offer conclusive results.

“The 45% mortality rate in the control group jumps out at me as rather high,” said David Boulware, MD, of the University of Minnesota.

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

An experimental cancer drug could be promising for some people hospitalized with COVID-19, a new study shows.

The medication, called sabizabulin and given as a pill, reduced by half the risk of death among participants. It could be more effective than other drugs for those severely sick with COVID-19, The New York Times reports.

The manufacturer, Veru, is seeking emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients currently have only a few pharmaceutical options.

Sabizabulin blocks cells from building molecular cables that carry material from one part of a cell to another. It was created to fight cancer, because tumor cells need those cables (called microtubules) to grow quickly.

Researchers tried it against COVID-19 2 years ago, because viral replication also requires microtubules to bring pieces of new viruses together.

To participate in the small trial, patients had to be receiving oxygen or on a ventilator and at a high risk of dying from COVID-19, “with risk factors such as hypertension, advanced age or obesity,” the Times reported.

A total of 134 patients received the medicine; 70 got a placebo. Among those receiving sabizabulin, 20.2% died within 2 months; 45.1% of those who took the placebo died.

One infectious disease expert told the Times that the high mortality rate of those on the placebo could mean the study was too small to offer conclusive results.

“The 45% mortality rate in the control group jumps out at me as rather high,” said David Boulware, MD, of the University of Minnesota.

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

An experimental cancer drug could be promising for some people hospitalized with COVID-19, a new study shows.

The medication, called sabizabulin and given as a pill, reduced by half the risk of death among participants. It could be more effective than other drugs for those severely sick with COVID-19, The New York Times reports.

The manufacturer, Veru, is seeking emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients currently have only a few pharmaceutical options.

Sabizabulin blocks cells from building molecular cables that carry material from one part of a cell to another. It was created to fight cancer, because tumor cells need those cables (called microtubules) to grow quickly.

Researchers tried it against COVID-19 2 years ago, because viral replication also requires microtubules to bring pieces of new viruses together.

To participate in the small trial, patients had to be receiving oxygen or on a ventilator and at a high risk of dying from COVID-19, “with risk factors such as hypertension, advanced age or obesity,” the Times reported.

A total of 134 patients received the medicine; 70 got a placebo. Among those receiving sabizabulin, 20.2% died within 2 months; 45.1% of those who took the placebo died.

One infectious disease expert told the Times that the high mortality rate of those on the placebo could mean the study was too small to offer conclusive results.

“The 45% mortality rate in the control group jumps out at me as rather high,” said David Boulware, MD, of the University of Minnesota.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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