Covid ICYMI

LISBON – During the pandemic, critical and acute care hospitals with medium and high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) showed significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations of antibiotic treatment among all hospital admissions, and also in those patients who were bacterial culture negative, according to a large U.S.-based study.

The analysis across 271 U.S. hospitals also showed that AMR rates were significantly higher for pathogens during the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period in patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and highest in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.

More than a third of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics were bacterial culture negative.

Findings of the study were presented by Vikas Gupta, PharmD, director of medical affairs at medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. He conducted the study jointly with Karri Bauer, PharmD, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, N.J., and colleagues.

“There are differences in AMR that go beyond COVID-positive admissions,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “There is opportunity for improvement especially with those hospitalized patients who had a negative culture result, or no culture collected.”

“We found a higher percentage of COVID-positive admissions that were prescribed antibacterial therapy even in those having [tested negative for bacteria] or no culture result,” said Dr. Gupta. “Our data also shows that the percentage of admissions with duration of antibacterial therapy over 3 days was significantly higher in COVID-positive but culture-negative/no culture patients, compared to other groups evaluated.”

Of all admissions prescribed antibiotics during the pandemic, 57.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were prescribed antibiotics whereas 88.1% of SARS-CoV-2–positive admissions were bacterial culture negative/no culture. Overall, prepandemic, 35% of admissions were prescribed antibiotics.

Duration of antibiotic therapy in the prepandemic era was an average of 3.5 days, compared with an average of 3.8 days overall in the pandemic and 5.7 days in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the percentage of patients who were bacterial culture negative or had no culture and received antibiotic therapy for more than 72 hours was 17.6% in the prepandemic era, compared with 19.2% overall in the pandemic era, and 41.1% in patients who tested positive for COVID-19.  

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bauer wanted to look at all patients admitted to hospitals segmented by SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, and not tested, to get a sense of how much antibiotic use there was and how long patients were on antibiotics. “We ultimately want to optimize and not overuse antibiotics and prescribe them for right period of time,” said Dr. Gupta.

“To date, there has been no conclusive evidence about the suggestion that the pandemic has led to increased AMR rates, so we aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on AMR and antibiotic use across U.S. hospitals,” he explained.

The multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis made use of BD’s infection surveillance platform (BD HealthSight Infection Advisor with MedMined Insights) and was conducted across 271 U.S. critical access/acute care facilities, representing approximately 10%-13% of U.S. hospital admissions. It included all hospitalized patients with more than 1 day of in-patient admission. Patients were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test either 7 days or less prior to or within 14 days of admission.

Patients were categorized as hospitalized during the “prepandemic” period (July 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020) and the “pandemic” period (March 1, 2020 through Oct. 30, 2021) and were stratified based on their SARS-CoV-2 result. 

Investigators included all hospital admissions with an AMR event (first positive culture for select gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens that were reported as nonsusceptible across blood, urine, respiratory, intra-abdominal, skin/wound, and other sources).

The investigators calculated AMR rates at the patient-admission level and defined per 100 admissions. Also, they further evaluated AMR rates based on community onset (defined as culture collected ≤2 days from admission) or hospital onset (>2 days from admission). Finally, AMR rates were determined according to whether they related to prepandemic or pandemic periods. 

Hospitals were also categorized according to their AMR rates as low (<25%), medium (25%-75%), and high (>75%). 

Overall AMR rates were lower in the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period. However, reported Dr.Gupta, for hospital-onset pathogens specifically, AMR rates were significantly higher overall in the pandemic period and mostly driven by admissions tested for SARS-CoV-2 (whether positive or negative).

Hospitals with high AMR rates also tended to have more SARS-CoV-2 positive admissions (6.1% in high-AMR hospitals vs. 3% in low-AMR hospitals). The highest antibiotic-prescribing rates and highest duration of antibiotic use was also seen in those hospitals with highest AMR rates. 

Of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who were bacterial culture negative/no culture and were prescribed antibiotics, 36.5% were in hospitals with a high AMR rate. “Roughly one-third of patients without culture evidence of a bacterial infection were prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with a high AMR rate,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers wanted to tease out whether hospitals with high, moderate, or low AMR rates look different with respect to antibiotic-prescribing patterns. During the pandemic period, they found that hospitals with high and medium AMR rates experienced significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations. Prepandemic, the overall hospital-onset AMR rate was 0.8 per 100 admissions, whereas during the pandemic this rose to 1.4 per 100 admissions in high-AMR hospitals and dropped to 0.4 in low-AMR hospitals.

SARS-CoV-2–positive admission rates were higher in facilities with medium (5.6%) and high AMR (6.1%) rates than those with low (3%) AMR rates. “We found that those with medium and high AMR rates were more likely to have COVID-positive admissions than facilities with low AMR rates,” Dr. Gupta said. “It appears as if COVID is contributing to AMR in the facilities.”

Asked for independent comment, Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, BCPS, clinical professor at Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, said in an interview, “It is not surprising that there was more antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID than those without. Even though antibiotics do not work for COVID, they are often prescribed, and antibiotic use is a major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance. This is likely because clinicians are sometimes concerned about coinfections with bacteria (which are rare) and because hospitalized patients with severe COVID can acquire other infections as they are treated.”
 

Antibiotic stewardship programs

Antibiotic stewardship programs have been highly stressed during the pandemic, so the researchers hope their data support the need for better antibiotic stewardship practices during pandemic surges when control is more challenging.

Dr. Gupta explained that they were seeing interesting associations that can inform antimicrobial stewardship programs and teams. “We are not trying to imply causality,” he stressed.

It is a common practice for stewardship teams to evaluate the need for continuation of antibiotic therapy at 3 days, especially in patients who are culture negative or did not have a culture collected.

“Antibiotic time-out at 3 days is a recommended practice to evaluate for continuing antibiotic therapy based on the patient’s condition and culture results,” he said. “This is what made our study unique because we wanted to look at what percentage of admissions were prescribed antibiotics beyond 3 days and compare to the prepandemic period.”

Session moderator Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases, University of Athens, Greece, thanked Dr. Gupta for his “eloquent presentation” and sought to clarify whether the data “refer to antimicrobial use that was empirical or whether use was in hospitals with high AMR rates, or whether the approach was driven through microbiology?”

Dr. Gupta replied that this was why they evaluated the negative-culture and no-culture patients. “We wanted to get a measure of antibacterial use in this population too,” he said. “Definitely, there is empirical therapy as well as definitive therapy, but I think the negative and no-culture group provide a reference point where we see similar signals and trends to that of the overall population.”

An audience member also addressed a question to Dr. Gupta: “Did you look at the patient population, because in many cases, during COVID, these patients may have been more severe than in the prepandemic period?”

Dr. Gupta replied: “In our manuscript we’ve done an analysis where we adjusted for patient-level facility and regional-level factors. There are definitely differences in the patient populations but overall, these are pretty sick patients when we look at the level of severity overall.”

Dr. Gupta is an employee of and a shareholder in Becton Dickinson. Dr. Bauer is an employee of and a shareholder in Merck. Dr. Gallagher consults for many pharmaceutical companies including Merck.

Dr. Giamarellos-Bourboulis disclosed honoraria (paid to the University of Athens) from Abbott CH, Brahms Thermo Fisher GMBH Germany, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sobi; serving as a consultant for Abbott CH, Fab’nTech, InflaRx GmbH, UCB, Sobi, and Xbiotech; research grants (paid to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) from Abbott CH, BioMerieux France, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Sobi, Thermo Fisher Brahms GmbH; and EU research funding: Horizon 2020 ITN European Sepsis Academy (granted to the University of Athens); Horizon 2020 ImmunoSep and RISinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis); Horizon Health EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis).

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

LISBON – During the pandemic, critical and acute care hospitals with medium and high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) showed significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations of antibiotic treatment among all hospital admissions, and also in those patients who were bacterial culture negative, according to a large U.S.-based study.

The analysis across 271 U.S. hospitals also showed that AMR rates were significantly higher for pathogens during the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period in patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and highest in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.

More than a third of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics were bacterial culture negative.

Findings of the study were presented by Vikas Gupta, PharmD, director of medical affairs at medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. He conducted the study jointly with Karri Bauer, PharmD, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, N.J., and colleagues.

“There are differences in AMR that go beyond COVID-positive admissions,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “There is opportunity for improvement especially with those hospitalized patients who had a negative culture result, or no culture collected.”

“We found a higher percentage of COVID-positive admissions that were prescribed antibacterial therapy even in those having [tested negative for bacteria] or no culture result,” said Dr. Gupta. “Our data also shows that the percentage of admissions with duration of antibacterial therapy over 3 days was significantly higher in COVID-positive but culture-negative/no culture patients, compared to other groups evaluated.”

Of all admissions prescribed antibiotics during the pandemic, 57.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were prescribed antibiotics whereas 88.1% of SARS-CoV-2–positive admissions were bacterial culture negative/no culture. Overall, prepandemic, 35% of admissions were prescribed antibiotics.

Duration of antibiotic therapy in the prepandemic era was an average of 3.5 days, compared with an average of 3.8 days overall in the pandemic and 5.7 days in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the percentage of patients who were bacterial culture negative or had no culture and received antibiotic therapy for more than 72 hours was 17.6% in the prepandemic era, compared with 19.2% overall in the pandemic era, and 41.1% in patients who tested positive for COVID-19.  

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bauer wanted to look at all patients admitted to hospitals segmented by SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, and not tested, to get a sense of how much antibiotic use there was and how long patients were on antibiotics. “We ultimately want to optimize and not overuse antibiotics and prescribe them for right period of time,” said Dr. Gupta.

“To date, there has been no conclusive evidence about the suggestion that the pandemic has led to increased AMR rates, so we aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on AMR and antibiotic use across U.S. hospitals,” he explained.

The multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis made use of BD’s infection surveillance platform (BD HealthSight Infection Advisor with MedMined Insights) and was conducted across 271 U.S. critical access/acute care facilities, representing approximately 10%-13% of U.S. hospital admissions. It included all hospitalized patients with more than 1 day of in-patient admission. Patients were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test either 7 days or less prior to or within 14 days of admission.

Patients were categorized as hospitalized during the “prepandemic” period (July 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020) and the “pandemic” period (March 1, 2020 through Oct. 30, 2021) and were stratified based on their SARS-CoV-2 result. 

Investigators included all hospital admissions with an AMR event (first positive culture for select gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens that were reported as nonsusceptible across blood, urine, respiratory, intra-abdominal, skin/wound, and other sources).

The investigators calculated AMR rates at the patient-admission level and defined per 100 admissions. Also, they further evaluated AMR rates based on community onset (defined as culture collected ≤2 days from admission) or hospital onset (>2 days from admission). Finally, AMR rates were determined according to whether they related to prepandemic or pandemic periods. 

Hospitals were also categorized according to their AMR rates as low (<25%), medium (25%-75%), and high (>75%). 

Overall AMR rates were lower in the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period. However, reported Dr.Gupta, for hospital-onset pathogens specifically, AMR rates were significantly higher overall in the pandemic period and mostly driven by admissions tested for SARS-CoV-2 (whether positive or negative).

Hospitals with high AMR rates also tended to have more SARS-CoV-2 positive admissions (6.1% in high-AMR hospitals vs. 3% in low-AMR hospitals). The highest antibiotic-prescribing rates and highest duration of antibiotic use was also seen in those hospitals with highest AMR rates. 

Of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who were bacterial culture negative/no culture and were prescribed antibiotics, 36.5% were in hospitals with a high AMR rate. “Roughly one-third of patients without culture evidence of a bacterial infection were prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with a high AMR rate,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers wanted to tease out whether hospitals with high, moderate, or low AMR rates look different with respect to antibiotic-prescribing patterns. During the pandemic period, they found that hospitals with high and medium AMR rates experienced significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations. Prepandemic, the overall hospital-onset AMR rate was 0.8 per 100 admissions, whereas during the pandemic this rose to 1.4 per 100 admissions in high-AMR hospitals and dropped to 0.4 in low-AMR hospitals.

SARS-CoV-2–positive admission rates were higher in facilities with medium (5.6%) and high AMR (6.1%) rates than those with low (3%) AMR rates. “We found that those with medium and high AMR rates were more likely to have COVID-positive admissions than facilities with low AMR rates,” Dr. Gupta said. “It appears as if COVID is contributing to AMR in the facilities.”

Asked for independent comment, Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, BCPS, clinical professor at Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, said in an interview, “It is not surprising that there was more antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID than those without. Even though antibiotics do not work for COVID, they are often prescribed, and antibiotic use is a major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance. This is likely because clinicians are sometimes concerned about coinfections with bacteria (which are rare) and because hospitalized patients with severe COVID can acquire other infections as they are treated.”
 

Antibiotic stewardship programs

Antibiotic stewardship programs have been highly stressed during the pandemic, so the researchers hope their data support the need for better antibiotic stewardship practices during pandemic surges when control is more challenging.

Dr. Gupta explained that they were seeing interesting associations that can inform antimicrobial stewardship programs and teams. “We are not trying to imply causality,” he stressed.

It is a common practice for stewardship teams to evaluate the need for continuation of antibiotic therapy at 3 days, especially in patients who are culture negative or did not have a culture collected.

“Antibiotic time-out at 3 days is a recommended practice to evaluate for continuing antibiotic therapy based on the patient’s condition and culture results,” he said. “This is what made our study unique because we wanted to look at what percentage of admissions were prescribed antibiotics beyond 3 days and compare to the prepandemic period.”

Session moderator Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases, University of Athens, Greece, thanked Dr. Gupta for his “eloquent presentation” and sought to clarify whether the data “refer to antimicrobial use that was empirical or whether use was in hospitals with high AMR rates, or whether the approach was driven through microbiology?”

Dr. Gupta replied that this was why they evaluated the negative-culture and no-culture patients. “We wanted to get a measure of antibacterial use in this population too,” he said. “Definitely, there is empirical therapy as well as definitive therapy, but I think the negative and no-culture group provide a reference point where we see similar signals and trends to that of the overall population.”

An audience member also addressed a question to Dr. Gupta: “Did you look at the patient population, because in many cases, during COVID, these patients may have been more severe than in the prepandemic period?”

Dr. Gupta replied: “In our manuscript we’ve done an analysis where we adjusted for patient-level facility and regional-level factors. There are definitely differences in the patient populations but overall, these are pretty sick patients when we look at the level of severity overall.”

Dr. Gupta is an employee of and a shareholder in Becton Dickinson. Dr. Bauer is an employee of and a shareholder in Merck. Dr. Gallagher consults for many pharmaceutical companies including Merck.

Dr. Giamarellos-Bourboulis disclosed honoraria (paid to the University of Athens) from Abbott CH, Brahms Thermo Fisher GMBH Germany, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sobi; serving as a consultant for Abbott CH, Fab’nTech, InflaRx GmbH, UCB, Sobi, and Xbiotech; research grants (paid to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) from Abbott CH, BioMerieux France, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Sobi, Thermo Fisher Brahms GmbH; and EU research funding: Horizon 2020 ITN European Sepsis Academy (granted to the University of Athens); Horizon 2020 ImmunoSep and RISinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis); Horizon Health EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis).

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

LISBON – During the pandemic, critical and acute care hospitals with medium and high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) showed significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations of antibiotic treatment among all hospital admissions, and also in those patients who were bacterial culture negative, according to a large U.S.-based study.

The analysis across 271 U.S. hospitals also showed that AMR rates were significantly higher for pathogens during the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period in patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and highest in SARS-CoV-2–positive patients.

More than a third of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients who were prescribed antibiotics were bacterial culture negative.

Findings of the study were presented by Vikas Gupta, PharmD, director of medical affairs at medical technology firm Becton Dickinson, at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. He conducted the study jointly with Karri Bauer, PharmD, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, N.J., and colleagues.

“There are differences in AMR that go beyond COVID-positive admissions,” Dr. Gupta told this news organization. “There is opportunity for improvement especially with those hospitalized patients who had a negative culture result, or no culture collected.”

“We found a higher percentage of COVID-positive admissions that were prescribed antibacterial therapy even in those having [tested negative for bacteria] or no culture result,” said Dr. Gupta. “Our data also shows that the percentage of admissions with duration of antibacterial therapy over 3 days was significantly higher in COVID-positive but culture-negative/no culture patients, compared to other groups evaluated.”

Of all admissions prescribed antibiotics during the pandemic, 57.8% of SARS-CoV-2–positive patients were prescribed antibiotics whereas 88.1% of SARS-CoV-2–positive admissions were bacterial culture negative/no culture. Overall, prepandemic, 35% of admissions were prescribed antibiotics.

Duration of antibiotic therapy in the prepandemic era was an average of 3.5 days, compared with an average of 3.8 days overall in the pandemic and 5.7 days in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, the percentage of patients who were bacterial culture negative or had no culture and received antibiotic therapy for more than 72 hours was 17.6% in the prepandemic era, compared with 19.2% overall in the pandemic era, and 41.1% in patients who tested positive for COVID-19.  

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bauer wanted to look at all patients admitted to hospitals segmented by SARS-CoV-2 positive, negative, and not tested, to get a sense of how much antibiotic use there was and how long patients were on antibiotics. “We ultimately want to optimize and not overuse antibiotics and prescribe them for right period of time,” said Dr. Gupta.

“To date, there has been no conclusive evidence about the suggestion that the pandemic has led to increased AMR rates, so we aimed to evaluate the pandemic’s impact on AMR and antibiotic use across U.S. hospitals,” he explained.

The multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis made use of BD’s infection surveillance platform (BD HealthSight Infection Advisor with MedMined Insights) and was conducted across 271 U.S. critical access/acute care facilities, representing approximately 10%-13% of U.S. hospital admissions. It included all hospitalized patients with more than 1 day of in-patient admission. Patients were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction test or antigen test either 7 days or less prior to or within 14 days of admission.

Patients were categorized as hospitalized during the “prepandemic” period (July 1, 2019 through February 29, 2020) and the “pandemic” period (March 1, 2020 through Oct. 30, 2021) and were stratified based on their SARS-CoV-2 result. 

Investigators included all hospital admissions with an AMR event (first positive culture for select gram-negative or gram-positive pathogens that were reported as nonsusceptible across blood, urine, respiratory, intra-abdominal, skin/wound, and other sources).

The investigators calculated AMR rates at the patient-admission level and defined per 100 admissions. Also, they further evaluated AMR rates based on community onset (defined as culture collected ≤2 days from admission) or hospital onset (>2 days from admission). Finally, AMR rates were determined according to whether they related to prepandemic or pandemic periods. 

Hospitals were also categorized according to their AMR rates as low (<25%), medium (25%-75%), and high (>75%). 

Overall AMR rates were lower in the pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period. However, reported Dr.Gupta, for hospital-onset pathogens specifically, AMR rates were significantly higher overall in the pandemic period and mostly driven by admissions tested for SARS-CoV-2 (whether positive or negative).

Hospitals with high AMR rates also tended to have more SARS-CoV-2 positive admissions (6.1% in high-AMR hospitals vs. 3% in low-AMR hospitals). The highest antibiotic-prescribing rates and highest duration of antibiotic use was also seen in those hospitals with highest AMR rates. 

Of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who were bacterial culture negative/no culture and were prescribed antibiotics, 36.5% were in hospitals with a high AMR rate. “Roughly one-third of patients without culture evidence of a bacterial infection were prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with a high AMR rate,” said Dr. Gupta.

The researchers wanted to tease out whether hospitals with high, moderate, or low AMR rates look different with respect to antibiotic-prescribing patterns. During the pandemic period, they found that hospitals with high and medium AMR rates experienced significant increases in antibiotic prescriptions and longer durations. Prepandemic, the overall hospital-onset AMR rate was 0.8 per 100 admissions, whereas during the pandemic this rose to 1.4 per 100 admissions in high-AMR hospitals and dropped to 0.4 in low-AMR hospitals.

SARS-CoV-2–positive admission rates were higher in facilities with medium (5.6%) and high AMR (6.1%) rates than those with low (3%) AMR rates. “We found that those with medium and high AMR rates were more likely to have COVID-positive admissions than facilities with low AMR rates,” Dr. Gupta said. “It appears as if COVID is contributing to AMR in the facilities.”

Asked for independent comment, Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, BCPS, clinical professor at Temple University School of Pharmacy in Philadelphia, said in an interview, “It is not surprising that there was more antimicrobial resistance in patients with COVID than those without. Even though antibiotics do not work for COVID, they are often prescribed, and antibiotic use is a major risk factor for antimicrobial resistance. This is likely because clinicians are sometimes concerned about coinfections with bacteria (which are rare) and because hospitalized patients with severe COVID can acquire other infections as they are treated.”
 

Antibiotic stewardship programs

Antibiotic stewardship programs have been highly stressed during the pandemic, so the researchers hope their data support the need for better antibiotic stewardship practices during pandemic surges when control is more challenging.

Dr. Gupta explained that they were seeing interesting associations that can inform antimicrobial stewardship programs and teams. “We are not trying to imply causality,” he stressed.

It is a common practice for stewardship teams to evaluate the need for continuation of antibiotic therapy at 3 days, especially in patients who are culture negative or did not have a culture collected.

“Antibiotic time-out at 3 days is a recommended practice to evaluate for continuing antibiotic therapy based on the patient’s condition and culture results,” he said. “This is what made our study unique because we wanted to look at what percentage of admissions were prescribed antibiotics beyond 3 days and compare to the prepandemic period.”

Session moderator Evangelos J. Giamarellos-Bourboulis, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases, University of Athens, Greece, thanked Dr. Gupta for his “eloquent presentation” and sought to clarify whether the data “refer to antimicrobial use that was empirical or whether use was in hospitals with high AMR rates, or whether the approach was driven through microbiology?”

Dr. Gupta replied that this was why they evaluated the negative-culture and no-culture patients. “We wanted to get a measure of antibacterial use in this population too,” he said. “Definitely, there is empirical therapy as well as definitive therapy, but I think the negative and no-culture group provide a reference point where we see similar signals and trends to that of the overall population.”

An audience member also addressed a question to Dr. Gupta: “Did you look at the patient population, because in many cases, during COVID, these patients may have been more severe than in the prepandemic period?”

Dr. Gupta replied: “In our manuscript we’ve done an analysis where we adjusted for patient-level facility and regional-level factors. There are definitely differences in the patient populations but overall, these are pretty sick patients when we look at the level of severity overall.”

Dr. Gupta is an employee of and a shareholder in Becton Dickinson. Dr. Bauer is an employee of and a shareholder in Merck. Dr. Gallagher consults for many pharmaceutical companies including Merck.

Dr. Giamarellos-Bourboulis disclosed honoraria (paid to the University of Athens) from Abbott CH, Brahms Thermo Fisher GMBH Germany, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sobi; serving as a consultant for Abbott CH, Fab’nTech, InflaRx GmbH, UCB, Sobi, and Xbiotech; research grants (paid to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis) from Abbott CH, BioMerieux France, Johnson & Johnson, MSD, Sobi, Thermo Fisher Brahms GmbH; and EU research funding: Horizon 2020 ITN European Sepsis Academy (granted to the University of Athens); Horizon 2020 ImmunoSep and RISinCOVID (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis); Horizon Health EPIC-CROWN-2 (granted to the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis).

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

Even mundane tasks such as making a meal can be exhausting for Louise Salant.

“I’m totally wiped out,” said the 71-year-old former private music instructor with asthma who lives in New York City and has been coping with debilitating symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms since recovering from a severe bout of COVID-19 2 years ago. “I just don’t have the energy.”

Ms. Salant is not alone. Many older people who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms of the disease. An analysis of Medicare Advantage claims data published in the BMJ found that about one-third of roughly 87,000 adults aged 65 in the database with a COVID-19 diagnosis sought care for persistent or new symptoms 21 or more days later.

That figure is about twice the rate of persistent COVID-19 related symptoms seen in a cohort of adults younger than age 65 with commercial insurance analyzed by the same group of researchers in a separate BMJ study. Compared with a 2020 comparator group of patients in this age cohort, these patients had a greater likelihood of respiratory failure, fatigue, hypertension, memory problems, kidney injury, mental health conditions, hypercoagulability, and cardiac rhythm disorders. When they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms to lasting symptoms of another serious viral disease – influenza – the researchers found that only respiratory failure, dementia, and post-viral fatigue were more common in the COVID-19 group.

“It became clear early in the pandemic that there is going to be a second pandemic related to all of the complications that we’ve seen related to COVID-19 infections,” said Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research and national senior medical director for Optum Labs in Minnetonka, Minn., who coauthored the BMJ studies.

The results are among a growing body of evidence suggesting that older adults are at high risk of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

Researchers in Rome, for example, found that 83% of 165 patients aged 65 or older who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 reported at least one lasting symptom – problems like fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, and coughing – in the months after hospitalization. One-third of those had two symptoms, and 46% had three or more.

A similar study in Norway found that two-thirds of patients aged 60 or older reported reduced health-related quality of life during follow-up visits 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The most-reported impairments among those patients were the inability to perform the tasks of daily life, reduced mobility, and increased pain and discomfort.
 

Cognitive concerns

Mounting evidence indicates that COVID-19 may contribute to chronic cognitive impairment in older adults. A multisite U.S. study found that 28% of 817 adults presenting to emergency departments with COVID-19 had delirium and poorer outcomes. A Chinese case-control study that enrolled 1,438 individuals hospitalized in Wuhan for COVID-19, along with 438 of their uninfected spouses, found that 12% of COVID-19 survivors experienced cognitive impairment a year after discharge. Matteo Tosato, MD, PhD, head of the outpatient clinic for patients with long COVID symptoms at Gemelli Hospital in Rome, called those findings “very concerning.”

Jin Ho Han, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said cognitive impairment is common after an acute illness, particularly in frail or vulnerable patients.

“Hospitalization and the acute illness itself accelerate cognitive decline,” said Dr. Han, and previous evidence links delirium with worsening cognition. He and his colleagues are studying the potential role of delirium in longer-term cognitive decline in older patients after COVID-19.

Dr. Han emphasized the importance of preventing COVID-19-related delirium through vaccines and other strategies to reduce exposure of older patients to the virus. “Once you have cognitive decline, there are no interventions to reverse it,” he said.
 

Alarm bells for long-term care

Experts expressed concern that the situation might be even worse for people living in long-term care facilities. Many already need assistance with tasks of daily living and could be particularly vulnerable to lasting effects of COVID-19, said Karl Steinberg, MD, president of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. He estimated that roughly half of his patients who have had COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, have endured some degree of functional decline.

“It’s common for long-term care facility residents to experience functional and cognitive decline, even after seemingly minor things, like a cold or a trip to the hospital,” Dr. Steinberg, who has been a medical director of long-term care facilities in San Diego County for more than 2 decades, told this news organization. “It makes it a little harder to determine whether the declines we’ve been seeing post COVID in these residents are attributable to post COVID versus just an accelerated step in their overall expected decline.”

The pandemic may have contributed to worse outcomes for people in long-term care facilities in several ways: the disease itself, its effects on health care delivery, and necessary preventive measures to protect long-term care residents from exposure to the virus.

“During the many months where family visits were prohibited, we saw people – whether they had COVID-19 or not – suffer major clinical, functional, cognitive declines or severe psychological symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said.

He emphasized the importance of preventive measures such as vaccines and boosters in patients in long-term care facilities. He said the benefit of preventing lasting symptoms is often a strong motivator for family caregivers of people with dementia to get them vaccinated or boosted.

“It’s clear that vaccination and booster reduce the incidence of post-COVID symptoms,” he said. Almost all studies have been in younger cohorts, but he expects the benefits would also apply to older patients.
 

Easing symptoms and offering support

As with long COVID generally, many questions remain about the causes of lasting symptoms of COVID-19 in older patients, and how best to treat them. Dr. Tosato, who led the study of long-COVID patients in Rome, is focusing on inflammation as a critical factor in the condition. He and colleagues across Europe hope to answer some of them by launching a multicenter study of lasting COVID-19 symptoms. 

In the meantime, Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Tosato said they are doing their best to evaluate and treat patients empirically.

“We pull from our armamentarium to treat system-specific symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said. “We want to improve the quality of life and help each day be the best it can.”

Physicians in long-term care facilities might use medications such as antidepressants or nonpharmacologic approaches for patients experiencing depression symptoms. Families are also crucial in helping patients by bringing in home-cooked meals and encouraging loved ones who may be experiencing loss of taste or smell to eat, Dr. Steinberg said.

“We’ve seen with the return of families and loved ones visiting to some extent has alleviated some people’s symptoms, especially psychological ones,” he said.

Dr. Tosato said he and his colleagues start with an individualized, multidisciplinary assessment to determine what types of care may help. He noted that physicians might recommend medications or rehabilitative therapies depending on the patient’s needs.

“A personalized approach is key,” Dr. Tosato said. His study also found that the proportion of older patients experiencing symptoms declined over time – a glimmer of hope that many will recover. 

Dr. Cohen emphasized the need for a multimodal rehabilitation, an evidence-based approach used to care for patients who survived hospitalization with severe COVID-19 – a group that has substantially higher rates of persistent symptoms. This approach includes cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a graded exercise program.

Dr. Han and colleagues are studying potential therapies such as cognitive rehabilitation in adults who’ve experienced delirium. But until evidence-based treatments are available, they stress the role of support for patients with cognitive decline and their families.   

“A lot of the work we do is teach patients and their families to compensate for newly acquired cognitive deficits from any illness, including COVID-19,” Dr. Han said.

Ms. Salant said she has experienced some improvement in her energy since her pulmonologist recommended a new inhaler based on her symptoms. Her sense of smell and taste, lost to the infection, returned after she received her first dose of a vaccine against COVID-19. She takes comfort in participating in Survivor Corps, a group of more than 170,000 COVID-19 survivors and their families who advocate for more scientific research on the disease.

She also expressed gratitude for the support she receives from her primary care physician, who she said has taken the time to learn more about the symptoms of long COVID, listens to her, and respects what she has to say.

“I have hope that I will keep getting better by baby steps,” Ms. Salant said. 

Dr. Tosato, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Han have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even mundane tasks such as making a meal can be exhausting for Louise Salant.

“I’m totally wiped out,” said the 71-year-old former private music instructor with asthma who lives in New York City and has been coping with debilitating symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms since recovering from a severe bout of COVID-19 2 years ago. “I just don’t have the energy.”

Ms. Salant is not alone. Many older people who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms of the disease. An analysis of Medicare Advantage claims data published in the BMJ found that about one-third of roughly 87,000 adults aged 65 in the database with a COVID-19 diagnosis sought care for persistent or new symptoms 21 or more days later.

That figure is about twice the rate of persistent COVID-19 related symptoms seen in a cohort of adults younger than age 65 with commercial insurance analyzed by the same group of researchers in a separate BMJ study. Compared with a 2020 comparator group of patients in this age cohort, these patients had a greater likelihood of respiratory failure, fatigue, hypertension, memory problems, kidney injury, mental health conditions, hypercoagulability, and cardiac rhythm disorders. When they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms to lasting symptoms of another serious viral disease – influenza – the researchers found that only respiratory failure, dementia, and post-viral fatigue were more common in the COVID-19 group.

“It became clear early in the pandemic that there is going to be a second pandemic related to all of the complications that we’ve seen related to COVID-19 infections,” said Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research and national senior medical director for Optum Labs in Minnetonka, Minn., who coauthored the BMJ studies.

The results are among a growing body of evidence suggesting that older adults are at high risk of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

Researchers in Rome, for example, found that 83% of 165 patients aged 65 or older who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 reported at least one lasting symptom – problems like fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, and coughing – in the months after hospitalization. One-third of those had two symptoms, and 46% had three or more.

A similar study in Norway found that two-thirds of patients aged 60 or older reported reduced health-related quality of life during follow-up visits 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The most-reported impairments among those patients were the inability to perform the tasks of daily life, reduced mobility, and increased pain and discomfort.
 

Cognitive concerns

Mounting evidence indicates that COVID-19 may contribute to chronic cognitive impairment in older adults. A multisite U.S. study found that 28% of 817 adults presenting to emergency departments with COVID-19 had delirium and poorer outcomes. A Chinese case-control study that enrolled 1,438 individuals hospitalized in Wuhan for COVID-19, along with 438 of their uninfected spouses, found that 12% of COVID-19 survivors experienced cognitive impairment a year after discharge. Matteo Tosato, MD, PhD, head of the outpatient clinic for patients with long COVID symptoms at Gemelli Hospital in Rome, called those findings “very concerning.”

Jin Ho Han, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said cognitive impairment is common after an acute illness, particularly in frail or vulnerable patients.

“Hospitalization and the acute illness itself accelerate cognitive decline,” said Dr. Han, and previous evidence links delirium with worsening cognition. He and his colleagues are studying the potential role of delirium in longer-term cognitive decline in older patients after COVID-19.

Dr. Han emphasized the importance of preventing COVID-19-related delirium through vaccines and other strategies to reduce exposure of older patients to the virus. “Once you have cognitive decline, there are no interventions to reverse it,” he said.
 

Alarm bells for long-term care

Experts expressed concern that the situation might be even worse for people living in long-term care facilities. Many already need assistance with tasks of daily living and could be particularly vulnerable to lasting effects of COVID-19, said Karl Steinberg, MD, president of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. He estimated that roughly half of his patients who have had COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, have endured some degree of functional decline.

“It’s common for long-term care facility residents to experience functional and cognitive decline, even after seemingly minor things, like a cold or a trip to the hospital,” Dr. Steinberg, who has been a medical director of long-term care facilities in San Diego County for more than 2 decades, told this news organization. “It makes it a little harder to determine whether the declines we’ve been seeing post COVID in these residents are attributable to post COVID versus just an accelerated step in their overall expected decline.”

The pandemic may have contributed to worse outcomes for people in long-term care facilities in several ways: the disease itself, its effects on health care delivery, and necessary preventive measures to protect long-term care residents from exposure to the virus.

“During the many months where family visits were prohibited, we saw people – whether they had COVID-19 or not – suffer major clinical, functional, cognitive declines or severe psychological symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said.

He emphasized the importance of preventive measures such as vaccines and boosters in patients in long-term care facilities. He said the benefit of preventing lasting symptoms is often a strong motivator for family caregivers of people with dementia to get them vaccinated or boosted.

“It’s clear that vaccination and booster reduce the incidence of post-COVID symptoms,” he said. Almost all studies have been in younger cohorts, but he expects the benefits would also apply to older patients.
 

Easing symptoms and offering support

As with long COVID generally, many questions remain about the causes of lasting symptoms of COVID-19 in older patients, and how best to treat them. Dr. Tosato, who led the study of long-COVID patients in Rome, is focusing on inflammation as a critical factor in the condition. He and colleagues across Europe hope to answer some of them by launching a multicenter study of lasting COVID-19 symptoms. 

In the meantime, Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Tosato said they are doing their best to evaluate and treat patients empirically.

“We pull from our armamentarium to treat system-specific symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said. “We want to improve the quality of life and help each day be the best it can.”

Physicians in long-term care facilities might use medications such as antidepressants or nonpharmacologic approaches for patients experiencing depression symptoms. Families are also crucial in helping patients by bringing in home-cooked meals and encouraging loved ones who may be experiencing loss of taste or smell to eat, Dr. Steinberg said.

“We’ve seen with the return of families and loved ones visiting to some extent has alleviated some people’s symptoms, especially psychological ones,” he said.

Dr. Tosato said he and his colleagues start with an individualized, multidisciplinary assessment to determine what types of care may help. He noted that physicians might recommend medications or rehabilitative therapies depending on the patient’s needs.

“A personalized approach is key,” Dr. Tosato said. His study also found that the proportion of older patients experiencing symptoms declined over time – a glimmer of hope that many will recover. 

Dr. Cohen emphasized the need for a multimodal rehabilitation, an evidence-based approach used to care for patients who survived hospitalization with severe COVID-19 – a group that has substantially higher rates of persistent symptoms. This approach includes cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a graded exercise program.

Dr. Han and colleagues are studying potential therapies such as cognitive rehabilitation in adults who’ve experienced delirium. But until evidence-based treatments are available, they stress the role of support for patients with cognitive decline and their families.   

“A lot of the work we do is teach patients and their families to compensate for newly acquired cognitive deficits from any illness, including COVID-19,” Dr. Han said.

Ms. Salant said she has experienced some improvement in her energy since her pulmonologist recommended a new inhaler based on her symptoms. Her sense of smell and taste, lost to the infection, returned after she received her first dose of a vaccine against COVID-19. She takes comfort in participating in Survivor Corps, a group of more than 170,000 COVID-19 survivors and their families who advocate for more scientific research on the disease.

She also expressed gratitude for the support she receives from her primary care physician, who she said has taken the time to learn more about the symptoms of long COVID, listens to her, and respects what she has to say.

“I have hope that I will keep getting better by baby steps,” Ms. Salant said. 

Dr. Tosato, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Han have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even mundane tasks such as making a meal can be exhausting for Louise Salant.

“I’m totally wiped out,” said the 71-year-old former private music instructor with asthma who lives in New York City and has been coping with debilitating symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms since recovering from a severe bout of COVID-19 2 years ago. “I just don’t have the energy.”

Ms. Salant is not alone. Many older people who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms of the disease. An analysis of Medicare Advantage claims data published in the BMJ found that about one-third of roughly 87,000 adults aged 65 in the database with a COVID-19 diagnosis sought care for persistent or new symptoms 21 or more days later.

That figure is about twice the rate of persistent COVID-19 related symptoms seen in a cohort of adults younger than age 65 with commercial insurance analyzed by the same group of researchers in a separate BMJ study. Compared with a 2020 comparator group of patients in this age cohort, these patients had a greater likelihood of respiratory failure, fatigue, hypertension, memory problems, kidney injury, mental health conditions, hypercoagulability, and cardiac rhythm disorders. When they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms to lasting symptoms of another serious viral disease – influenza – the researchers found that only respiratory failure, dementia, and post-viral fatigue were more common in the COVID-19 group.

“It became clear early in the pandemic that there is going to be a second pandemic related to all of the complications that we’ve seen related to COVID-19 infections,” said Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research and national senior medical director for Optum Labs in Minnetonka, Minn., who coauthored the BMJ studies.

The results are among a growing body of evidence suggesting that older adults are at high risk of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

Researchers in Rome, for example, found that 83% of 165 patients aged 65 or older who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 reported at least one lasting symptom – problems like fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, and coughing – in the months after hospitalization. One-third of those had two symptoms, and 46% had three or more.

A similar study in Norway found that two-thirds of patients aged 60 or older reported reduced health-related quality of life during follow-up visits 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19. The most-reported impairments among those patients were the inability to perform the tasks of daily life, reduced mobility, and increased pain and discomfort.
 

Cognitive concerns

Mounting evidence indicates that COVID-19 may contribute to chronic cognitive impairment in older adults. A multisite U.S. study found that 28% of 817 adults presenting to emergency departments with COVID-19 had delirium and poorer outcomes. A Chinese case-control study that enrolled 1,438 individuals hospitalized in Wuhan for COVID-19, along with 438 of their uninfected spouses, found that 12% of COVID-19 survivors experienced cognitive impairment a year after discharge. Matteo Tosato, MD, PhD, head of the outpatient clinic for patients with long COVID symptoms at Gemelli Hospital in Rome, called those findings “very concerning.”

Jin Ho Han, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said cognitive impairment is common after an acute illness, particularly in frail or vulnerable patients.

“Hospitalization and the acute illness itself accelerate cognitive decline,” said Dr. Han, and previous evidence links delirium with worsening cognition. He and his colleagues are studying the potential role of delirium in longer-term cognitive decline in older patients after COVID-19.

Dr. Han emphasized the importance of preventing COVID-19-related delirium through vaccines and other strategies to reduce exposure of older patients to the virus. “Once you have cognitive decline, there are no interventions to reverse it,” he said.
 

Alarm bells for long-term care

Experts expressed concern that the situation might be even worse for people living in long-term care facilities. Many already need assistance with tasks of daily living and could be particularly vulnerable to lasting effects of COVID-19, said Karl Steinberg, MD, president of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. He estimated that roughly half of his patients who have had COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, have endured some degree of functional decline.

“It’s common for long-term care facility residents to experience functional and cognitive decline, even after seemingly minor things, like a cold or a trip to the hospital,” Dr. Steinberg, who has been a medical director of long-term care facilities in San Diego County for more than 2 decades, told this news organization. “It makes it a little harder to determine whether the declines we’ve been seeing post COVID in these residents are attributable to post COVID versus just an accelerated step in their overall expected decline.”

The pandemic may have contributed to worse outcomes for people in long-term care facilities in several ways: the disease itself, its effects on health care delivery, and necessary preventive measures to protect long-term care residents from exposure to the virus.

“During the many months where family visits were prohibited, we saw people – whether they had COVID-19 or not – suffer major clinical, functional, cognitive declines or severe psychological symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said.

He emphasized the importance of preventive measures such as vaccines and boosters in patients in long-term care facilities. He said the benefit of preventing lasting symptoms is often a strong motivator for family caregivers of people with dementia to get them vaccinated or boosted.

“It’s clear that vaccination and booster reduce the incidence of post-COVID symptoms,” he said. Almost all studies have been in younger cohorts, but he expects the benefits would also apply to older patients.
 

Easing symptoms and offering support

As with long COVID generally, many questions remain about the causes of lasting symptoms of COVID-19 in older patients, and how best to treat them. Dr. Tosato, who led the study of long-COVID patients in Rome, is focusing on inflammation as a critical factor in the condition. He and colleagues across Europe hope to answer some of them by launching a multicenter study of lasting COVID-19 symptoms. 

In the meantime, Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Tosato said they are doing their best to evaluate and treat patients empirically.

“We pull from our armamentarium to treat system-specific symptoms,” Dr. Steinberg said. “We want to improve the quality of life and help each day be the best it can.”

Physicians in long-term care facilities might use medications such as antidepressants or nonpharmacologic approaches for patients experiencing depression symptoms. Families are also crucial in helping patients by bringing in home-cooked meals and encouraging loved ones who may be experiencing loss of taste or smell to eat, Dr. Steinberg said.

“We’ve seen with the return of families and loved ones visiting to some extent has alleviated some people’s symptoms, especially psychological ones,” he said.

Dr. Tosato said he and his colleagues start with an individualized, multidisciplinary assessment to determine what types of care may help. He noted that physicians might recommend medications or rehabilitative therapies depending on the patient’s needs.

“A personalized approach is key,” Dr. Tosato said. His study also found that the proportion of older patients experiencing symptoms declined over time – a glimmer of hope that many will recover. 

Dr. Cohen emphasized the need for a multimodal rehabilitation, an evidence-based approach used to care for patients who survived hospitalization with severe COVID-19 – a group that has substantially higher rates of persistent symptoms. This approach includes cognitive rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and a graded exercise program.

Dr. Han and colleagues are studying potential therapies such as cognitive rehabilitation in adults who’ve experienced delirium. But until evidence-based treatments are available, they stress the role of support for patients with cognitive decline and their families.   

“A lot of the work we do is teach patients and their families to compensate for newly acquired cognitive deficits from any illness, including COVID-19,” Dr. Han said.

Ms. Salant said she has experienced some improvement in her energy since her pulmonologist recommended a new inhaler based on her symptoms. Her sense of smell and taste, lost to the infection, returned after she received her first dose of a vaccine against COVID-19. She takes comfort in participating in Survivor Corps, a group of more than 170,000 COVID-19 survivors and their families who advocate for more scientific research on the disease.

She also expressed gratitude for the support she receives from her primary care physician, who she said has taken the time to learn more about the symptoms of long COVID, listens to her, and respects what she has to say.

“I have hope that I will keep getting better by baby steps,” Ms. Salant said. 

Dr. Tosato, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Han have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended a fifth COVID-19 mRNA shot for people who are immunocompromised, including many with cancer or a history of cancer.

A fifth shot of an mRNA vaccine represents a second booster, the group explained, because the primary mRNA immunization series for immunocompromised individuals involves three doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

The update, issued today, comes from the NCCN’s Advisory Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis, which released its first vaccine guidelines for patients with cancer in January 2021. The NCCN has issued numerous updates since then as information about the virus and vaccines has evolved. 

“We know a lot more about COVID-19 and the vaccines now, and we can use that knowledge to minimize the confusion and enhance the protection we can offer to our immunocompromised patients,” said advisory committee co-leader Lindsey Baden, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The latest iteration of the NCCN’s COVID guidelines includes an update for patients who initially received Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine, including a recommendation that patients receive an mRNA vaccine for both the first and second booster.

The group also updated dosing recommendations for pre-exposure prevention with tixagevimab plus cilgavimab (Evusheld, AstraZeneca), suggesting 300 mg of each monoclonal antibody instead of 150 mg, based on in vitro activity against Omicron variants.

The group noted that the Moderna and Pfizer shots can be used interchangeably for boosters.

“The NCCN Committee considers both homologous and heterologous boosters to be appropriate options,” the experts wrote.

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

The percentage of Americans who have been infected with COVID-19 jumped from 34% in December 2021 to 58% in February 2022, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals.

This is the first time the seroprevalence of prior infection is more than 50% in the American population.

“I definitely expected that we were going to see an increase continue ... but I didn’t expect it to increase quite this much. But we follow the data ... and this is what the evidence is showing us,” lead study researcher Kristie E. N. Clarke, MD, said during a CDC media briefing April 26.

Researchers found that presence of antinucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies from prior infection varied by age. The rate varied from as high as 75% in children and teenagers 17 years and younger to 33% in those 65 and older, for example.  

The study showed that the anti-N antibodies were more common in age groups with the lowest vaccination numbers.

Combined with up-to-date CDC data on deaths, hospitalizations, and cases, the study provides a clearer picture of where we are now and where we might be headed in terms of the pandemic.
 

Vaccination still valuable

The fact that nearly 60% of Americans have antibodies from prior infection is not a reason to think people with a history of COVID-19 should skip vaccination, said CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD.

“I can’t underscore enough that those with detectable antibodies from previous infection, we encourage them to still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said.

“We do know that reinfections happen,” she said, “so that’s important in terms of thinking forward.”

The CDC continues to encourage all Americans to stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, said Dr. Clarke, colead for the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Taskforce Seroprevalence Team. “Having infection-induced antibodies does not necessarily mean you are protected against future infections.”

The study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), did not evaluate antibody protection from COVID-19 vaccination.

It should also be noted that the study looked at presence or absence of anti-N antibodies, and not whether certain levels were linked to less or more protection.
 

Where are we now?

Dr. Walensky used the media briefing as an opportunity to share current COVID-19 numbers.

“Overall, we can continue to have some mixed trends. Deaths, fortunately, are continuing to trend downward with a 7-day average of about 300 per day, which represents an estimated 18% decline from the prior week,” she said.

Hospital admissions also remain low, at about 1,500 per day. “But we should note that for the second week in a row, they are slowly trending upwards,” Dr. Walensky said. There was an increase of about 9% at press time compared with the prior week.

Cases remain “comparatively low” to even where we were a month ago, at 44,000 per day,” Dr. Walensky said. “Although this too represents an increase of about 25% in the past week.”

Dr. Walensky noted that positive test numbers are not as reliable a metric as they were before the growth in use of rapid home tests. But it’s not the only measure. “We continue to believe that our PCR testing data, especially when we corroborate it with information from our other surveillance systems – like wastewater surveillance and emergency department surveillance – provide us a reliable picture of the trajectory of COVID-19 across our country.”

She recommended that people continue to consult the CDC’s COVID-19 county tracker to monitor local levels of COVID-19.

Dr. Walensky also shared recent findings from genomic sequencing that continue to show the predominance of the Omicron variant. “Essentially a hundred percent of what we’re finding now is Omicron,” she said. In terms of individual variants, the Omicron BA.1 variant is about 3% of circulating virus, the BA.2 variant is about 68%, and BA.2.12.1 makes up about 35%.

“We’re just starting to learn about the impact of BA2.121,” Dr. Walensky said. “It appears it might have a transmission advantage of about 25% over the BA2 subvariant.”

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

The percentage of Americans who have been infected with COVID-19 jumped from 34% in December 2021 to 58% in February 2022, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals.

This is the first time the seroprevalence of prior infection is more than 50% in the American population.

“I definitely expected that we were going to see an increase continue ... but I didn’t expect it to increase quite this much. But we follow the data ... and this is what the evidence is showing us,” lead study researcher Kristie E. N. Clarke, MD, said during a CDC media briefing April 26.

Researchers found that presence of antinucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies from prior infection varied by age. The rate varied from as high as 75% in children and teenagers 17 years and younger to 33% in those 65 and older, for example.  

The study showed that the anti-N antibodies were more common in age groups with the lowest vaccination numbers.

Combined with up-to-date CDC data on deaths, hospitalizations, and cases, the study provides a clearer picture of where we are now and where we might be headed in terms of the pandemic.
 

Vaccination still valuable

The fact that nearly 60% of Americans have antibodies from prior infection is not a reason to think people with a history of COVID-19 should skip vaccination, said CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD.

“I can’t underscore enough that those with detectable antibodies from previous infection, we encourage them to still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said.

“We do know that reinfections happen,” she said, “so that’s important in terms of thinking forward.”

The CDC continues to encourage all Americans to stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, said Dr. Clarke, colead for the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Taskforce Seroprevalence Team. “Having infection-induced antibodies does not necessarily mean you are protected against future infections.”

The study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), did not evaluate antibody protection from COVID-19 vaccination.

It should also be noted that the study looked at presence or absence of anti-N antibodies, and not whether certain levels were linked to less or more protection.
 

Where are we now?

Dr. Walensky used the media briefing as an opportunity to share current COVID-19 numbers.

“Overall, we can continue to have some mixed trends. Deaths, fortunately, are continuing to trend downward with a 7-day average of about 300 per day, which represents an estimated 18% decline from the prior week,” she said.

Hospital admissions also remain low, at about 1,500 per day. “But we should note that for the second week in a row, they are slowly trending upwards,” Dr. Walensky said. There was an increase of about 9% at press time compared with the prior week.

Cases remain “comparatively low” to even where we were a month ago, at 44,000 per day,” Dr. Walensky said. “Although this too represents an increase of about 25% in the past week.”

Dr. Walensky noted that positive test numbers are not as reliable a metric as they were before the growth in use of rapid home tests. But it’s not the only measure. “We continue to believe that our PCR testing data, especially when we corroborate it with information from our other surveillance systems – like wastewater surveillance and emergency department surveillance – provide us a reliable picture of the trajectory of COVID-19 across our country.”

She recommended that people continue to consult the CDC’s COVID-19 county tracker to monitor local levels of COVID-19.

Dr. Walensky also shared recent findings from genomic sequencing that continue to show the predominance of the Omicron variant. “Essentially a hundred percent of what we’re finding now is Omicron,” she said. In terms of individual variants, the Omicron BA.1 variant is about 3% of circulating virus, the BA.2 variant is about 68%, and BA.2.12.1 makes up about 35%.

“We’re just starting to learn about the impact of BA2.121,” Dr. Walensky said. “It appears it might have a transmission advantage of about 25% over the BA2 subvariant.”

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

The percentage of Americans who have been infected with COVID-19 jumped from 34% in December 2021 to 58% in February 2022, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals.

This is the first time the seroprevalence of prior infection is more than 50% in the American population.

“I definitely expected that we were going to see an increase continue ... but I didn’t expect it to increase quite this much. But we follow the data ... and this is what the evidence is showing us,” lead study researcher Kristie E. N. Clarke, MD, said during a CDC media briefing April 26.

Researchers found that presence of antinucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies from prior infection varied by age. The rate varied from as high as 75% in children and teenagers 17 years and younger to 33% in those 65 and older, for example.  

The study showed that the anti-N antibodies were more common in age groups with the lowest vaccination numbers.

Combined with up-to-date CDC data on deaths, hospitalizations, and cases, the study provides a clearer picture of where we are now and where we might be headed in terms of the pandemic.
 

Vaccination still valuable

The fact that nearly 60% of Americans have antibodies from prior infection is not a reason to think people with a history of COVID-19 should skip vaccination, said CDC director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD.

“I can’t underscore enough that those with detectable antibodies from previous infection, we encourage them to still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said.

“We do know that reinfections happen,” she said, “so that’s important in terms of thinking forward.”

The CDC continues to encourage all Americans to stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, said Dr. Clarke, colead for the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Taskforce Seroprevalence Team. “Having infection-induced antibodies does not necessarily mean you are protected against future infections.”

The study, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), did not evaluate antibody protection from COVID-19 vaccination.

It should also be noted that the study looked at presence or absence of anti-N antibodies, and not whether certain levels were linked to less or more protection.
 

Where are we now?

Dr. Walensky used the media briefing as an opportunity to share current COVID-19 numbers.

“Overall, we can continue to have some mixed trends. Deaths, fortunately, are continuing to trend downward with a 7-day average of about 300 per day, which represents an estimated 18% decline from the prior week,” she said.

Hospital admissions also remain low, at about 1,500 per day. “But we should note that for the second week in a row, they are slowly trending upwards,” Dr. Walensky said. There was an increase of about 9% at press time compared with the prior week.

Cases remain “comparatively low” to even where we were a month ago, at 44,000 per day,” Dr. Walensky said. “Although this too represents an increase of about 25% in the past week.”

Dr. Walensky noted that positive test numbers are not as reliable a metric as they were before the growth in use of rapid home tests. But it’s not the only measure. “We continue to believe that our PCR testing data, especially when we corroborate it with information from our other surveillance systems – like wastewater surveillance and emergency department surveillance – provide us a reliable picture of the trajectory of COVID-19 across our country.”

She recommended that people continue to consult the CDC’s COVID-19 county tracker to monitor local levels of COVID-19.

Dr. Walensky also shared recent findings from genomic sequencing that continue to show the predominance of the Omicron variant. “Essentially a hundred percent of what we’re finding now is Omicron,” she said. In terms of individual variants, the Omicron BA.1 variant is about 3% of circulating virus, the BA.2 variant is about 68%, and BA.2.12.1 makes up about 35%.

“We’re just starting to learn about the impact of BA2.121,” Dr. Walensky said. “It appears it might have a transmission advantage of about 25% over the BA2 subvariant.”

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

Contrary to popular belief, no association appeared between the number of intensive care unit beds and COVID-19 deaths, based on a review of data from all 50 states between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021.

One of the reasons for poor patient outcomes in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic was the presumed scarcity of ICU beds, Omar Haider, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, and colleagues said. “We hypothesized that the states having a lower number of ICU beds had more COVID-related deaths when compared to the states that had a higher number of ICU beds,” they wrote in an abstract presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

According to the researchers, the total number of ICU beds in the United States is approximately 85,000. Hawaii has the highest number of beds per 10,000 persons, and the District of Columbia has the lowest (6.0 vs. 1.6).

The researchers collected data on ICU bed totals from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Statistics on COVID-19 deaths were obtained from The New York Times database, which provided real-time information collected from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Census Bureau.

The researchers used the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to compare ICU beds and COVID deaths per 10,000 persons in each state. The R value was 0.29, which indicates no inverse correlation. “Our value of R2, the coefficient of determination, was 0.0858,” they added. They confirmed the results using the Spearman’s Rho, which yielded an rs of 0.3, also a sign of no inverse correlation. No correlation was found between low numbers of ICU beds and high numbers of COVID-19 deaths for any states.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of standardized reporting timelines across states, differences in state-based vaccination rates, the emergence of the Delta variant during the study period, and time-lag in contemporaneous database updates, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that physical ICU beds do not play a role in determining the number of COVID-related deaths. Instead, “other constraints such as less staffing, lack of medical supplies (ventilators and [personal protective equipment]) should be evaluated for potential implications on poor patients’ outcomes,” they concluded.
 

Pandemic challenges can inform future plans

“As the health care system emerges from the effects of the pandemic, it is important to understand the factors that contributed to adverse outcomes to better prepare for future challenges and improve the delivery of care,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. 

“The findings are not surprising considering what is known about the multitude of factors that determine outcomes for our patients from medical comorbidities, and social determinants of health to upstream structural factors such as systemic inequities and generational trauma,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the study. “Thus, a simple correlation of the number of ICU beds to COVID-19 outcomes is not likely to capture the interplay of all these factors.”

The challenges of the pandemic offer insights to inform future planning, said Dr. Pal.

“In my opinion, a key factor to understand and address would be employee wellness for health care workers,” he said. “The problem of burnout leading to health care workers leaving the workforce has exacerbated the already acute shortages in personnel in recent years.

“In the long term, it may be prudent to reconsider the approach to health by increasing support for preventative and primary care, addressing social factors such as education, nutrition, and housing, to mitigate preventable aspects of diseases.”

Further research is needed to examine the multitude of factors associated with the pandemic, and their interplay, said Dr. Pal. The goals of such research “would be needed to develop a deeper understanding of the factors that contributed to mortality in COVID-19 and the disparities with this across different subpopulations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to popular belief, no association appeared between the number of intensive care unit beds and COVID-19 deaths, based on a review of data from all 50 states between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021.

One of the reasons for poor patient outcomes in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic was the presumed scarcity of ICU beds, Omar Haider, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, and colleagues said. “We hypothesized that the states having a lower number of ICU beds had more COVID-related deaths when compared to the states that had a higher number of ICU beds,” they wrote in an abstract presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

According to the researchers, the total number of ICU beds in the United States is approximately 85,000. Hawaii has the highest number of beds per 10,000 persons, and the District of Columbia has the lowest (6.0 vs. 1.6).

The researchers collected data on ICU bed totals from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Statistics on COVID-19 deaths were obtained from The New York Times database, which provided real-time information collected from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Census Bureau.

The researchers used the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to compare ICU beds and COVID deaths per 10,000 persons in each state. The R value was 0.29, which indicates no inverse correlation. “Our value of R2, the coefficient of determination, was 0.0858,” they added. They confirmed the results using the Spearman’s Rho, which yielded an rs of 0.3, also a sign of no inverse correlation. No correlation was found between low numbers of ICU beds and high numbers of COVID-19 deaths for any states.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of standardized reporting timelines across states, differences in state-based vaccination rates, the emergence of the Delta variant during the study period, and time-lag in contemporaneous database updates, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that physical ICU beds do not play a role in determining the number of COVID-related deaths. Instead, “other constraints such as less staffing, lack of medical supplies (ventilators and [personal protective equipment]) should be evaluated for potential implications on poor patients’ outcomes,” they concluded.
 

Pandemic challenges can inform future plans

“As the health care system emerges from the effects of the pandemic, it is important to understand the factors that contributed to adverse outcomes to better prepare for future challenges and improve the delivery of care,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. 

“The findings are not surprising considering what is known about the multitude of factors that determine outcomes for our patients from medical comorbidities, and social determinants of health to upstream structural factors such as systemic inequities and generational trauma,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the study. “Thus, a simple correlation of the number of ICU beds to COVID-19 outcomes is not likely to capture the interplay of all these factors.”

The challenges of the pandemic offer insights to inform future planning, said Dr. Pal.

“In my opinion, a key factor to understand and address would be employee wellness for health care workers,” he said. “The problem of burnout leading to health care workers leaving the workforce has exacerbated the already acute shortages in personnel in recent years.

“In the long term, it may be prudent to reconsider the approach to health by increasing support for preventative and primary care, addressing social factors such as education, nutrition, and housing, to mitigate preventable aspects of diseases.”

Further research is needed to examine the multitude of factors associated with the pandemic, and their interplay, said Dr. Pal. The goals of such research “would be needed to develop a deeper understanding of the factors that contributed to mortality in COVID-19 and the disparities with this across different subpopulations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to popular belief, no association appeared between the number of intensive care unit beds and COVID-19 deaths, based on a review of data from all 50 states between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021.

One of the reasons for poor patient outcomes in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic was the presumed scarcity of ICU beds, Omar Haider, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, and colleagues said. “We hypothesized that the states having a lower number of ICU beds had more COVID-related deaths when compared to the states that had a higher number of ICU beds,” they wrote in an abstract presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

According to the researchers, the total number of ICU beds in the United States is approximately 85,000. Hawaii has the highest number of beds per 10,000 persons, and the District of Columbia has the lowest (6.0 vs. 1.6).

The researchers collected data on ICU bed totals from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Statistics on COVID-19 deaths were obtained from The New York Times database, which provided real-time information collected from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Census Bureau.

The researchers used the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to compare ICU beds and COVID deaths per 10,000 persons in each state. The R value was 0.29, which indicates no inverse correlation. “Our value of R2, the coefficient of determination, was 0.0858,” they added. They confirmed the results using the Spearman’s Rho, which yielded an rs of 0.3, also a sign of no inverse correlation. No correlation was found between low numbers of ICU beds and high numbers of COVID-19 deaths for any states.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of standardized reporting timelines across states, differences in state-based vaccination rates, the emergence of the Delta variant during the study period, and time-lag in contemporaneous database updates, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that physical ICU beds do not play a role in determining the number of COVID-related deaths. Instead, “other constraints such as less staffing, lack of medical supplies (ventilators and [personal protective equipment]) should be evaluated for potential implications on poor patients’ outcomes,” they concluded.
 

Pandemic challenges can inform future plans

“As the health care system emerges from the effects of the pandemic, it is important to understand the factors that contributed to adverse outcomes to better prepare for future challenges and improve the delivery of care,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. 

“The findings are not surprising considering what is known about the multitude of factors that determine outcomes for our patients from medical comorbidities, and social determinants of health to upstream structural factors such as systemic inequities and generational trauma,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the study. “Thus, a simple correlation of the number of ICU beds to COVID-19 outcomes is not likely to capture the interplay of all these factors.”

The challenges of the pandemic offer insights to inform future planning, said Dr. Pal.

“In my opinion, a key factor to understand and address would be employee wellness for health care workers,” he said. “The problem of burnout leading to health care workers leaving the workforce has exacerbated the already acute shortages in personnel in recent years.

“In the long term, it may be prudent to reconsider the approach to health by increasing support for preventative and primary care, addressing social factors such as education, nutrition, and housing, to mitigate preventable aspects of diseases.”

Further research is needed to examine the multitude of factors associated with the pandemic, and their interplay, said Dr. Pal. The goals of such research “would be needed to develop a deeper understanding of the factors that contributed to mortality in COVID-19 and the disparities with this across different subpopulations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Pal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children went up for a second consecutive week, but the pace of increase slowed considerably, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases were up by 11.8% for the week of April 15-21, with a total of just over 37,000 reported. The previous week’s count – about 33,000 new COVID cases for April 8-14 – was almost 30% higher than the week before and marked the first rise in incidence after 11 straight weeks of declines, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report, which is based on data from state and territorial health departments.

The cumulative number of child COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic is now over 12.9 million, with children representing 19.0% of cases among all ages. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which uses a different age range for children (0-17 years) than many states, reports corresponding figures of 12.4 million and 17.6%, along with 1,501 deaths.

ED visits show a similar rising trend over recent weeks, as the 7-day average of ED visits with confirmed COVID has crept up from 0.5% in late March/early April to 0.8% on April 22 for children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% for 0.5% for those aged 12-15, and from 0.3% to 0.6% for 16- and 17-year-olds, based on CDC data.

The daily rate for new admissions for children with confirmed COVID has also moved up slightly, rising from 0.13 per 100,000 population as late as April 13 to 0.15 per 100,000 on April 23. For the number of actual admissions, the latest 7-day (April 17-23) average was 107 in children aged 0-17, compared with 102 for the week of April 10-16, the CDC reported.

Uptake of the COVID vaccine, however, continued to slide since spiking in January. Initial vaccinations for the latest available week (April 14-20) were down to 48,000 from 59,000 the week before in children aged 5-11 years and 35,000 (vs. 47,000) for those aged 12-17. The weekly highs hit 500,000 and 331,000, respectively, during the Omicron surge, the AAP reported based on CDC data.

Among children aged 5-11, the CDC said that 35.0% had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of April 25 and that 28.3% are fully vaccinated, with corresponding figures of 68.8% and 58.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds on April 25.

Among the states, the highest vaccination rates generally are found in New England and the lowest in the Southeast. In Alabama, just 15% of children aged 5-11 have received an initial dose of the vaccine, compared with 66% in Vermont, while Wyoming is the lowest (41%) for children aged 12-17 and Massachusetts is the highest (96%), the AAP said in a separate report.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children went up for a second consecutive week, but the pace of increase slowed considerably, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases were up by 11.8% for the week of April 15-21, with a total of just over 37,000 reported. The previous week’s count – about 33,000 new COVID cases for April 8-14 – was almost 30% higher than the week before and marked the first rise in incidence after 11 straight weeks of declines, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report, which is based on data from state and territorial health departments.

The cumulative number of child COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic is now over 12.9 million, with children representing 19.0% of cases among all ages. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which uses a different age range for children (0-17 years) than many states, reports corresponding figures of 12.4 million and 17.6%, along with 1,501 deaths.

ED visits show a similar rising trend over recent weeks, as the 7-day average of ED visits with confirmed COVID has crept up from 0.5% in late March/early April to 0.8% on April 22 for children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% for 0.5% for those aged 12-15, and from 0.3% to 0.6% for 16- and 17-year-olds, based on CDC data.

The daily rate for new admissions for children with confirmed COVID has also moved up slightly, rising from 0.13 per 100,000 population as late as April 13 to 0.15 per 100,000 on April 23. For the number of actual admissions, the latest 7-day (April 17-23) average was 107 in children aged 0-17, compared with 102 for the week of April 10-16, the CDC reported.

Uptake of the COVID vaccine, however, continued to slide since spiking in January. Initial vaccinations for the latest available week (April 14-20) were down to 48,000 from 59,000 the week before in children aged 5-11 years and 35,000 (vs. 47,000) for those aged 12-17. The weekly highs hit 500,000 and 331,000, respectively, during the Omicron surge, the AAP reported based on CDC data.

Among children aged 5-11, the CDC said that 35.0% had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of April 25 and that 28.3% are fully vaccinated, with corresponding figures of 68.8% and 58.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds on April 25.

Among the states, the highest vaccination rates generally are found in New England and the lowest in the Southeast. In Alabama, just 15% of children aged 5-11 have received an initial dose of the vaccine, compared with 66% in Vermont, while Wyoming is the lowest (41%) for children aged 12-17 and Massachusetts is the highest (96%), the AAP said in a separate report.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in U.S. children went up for a second consecutive week, but the pace of increase slowed considerably, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases were up by 11.8% for the week of April 15-21, with a total of just over 37,000 reported. The previous week’s count – about 33,000 new COVID cases for April 8-14 – was almost 30% higher than the week before and marked the first rise in incidence after 11 straight weeks of declines, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report, which is based on data from state and territorial health departments.

The cumulative number of child COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic is now over 12.9 million, with children representing 19.0% of cases among all ages. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which uses a different age range for children (0-17 years) than many states, reports corresponding figures of 12.4 million and 17.6%, along with 1,501 deaths.

ED visits show a similar rising trend over recent weeks, as the 7-day average of ED visits with confirmed COVID has crept up from 0.5% in late March/early April to 0.8% on April 22 for children aged 0-11 years, from 0.3% for 0.5% for those aged 12-15, and from 0.3% to 0.6% for 16- and 17-year-olds, based on CDC data.

The daily rate for new admissions for children with confirmed COVID has also moved up slightly, rising from 0.13 per 100,000 population as late as April 13 to 0.15 per 100,000 on April 23. For the number of actual admissions, the latest 7-day (April 17-23) average was 107 in children aged 0-17, compared with 102 for the week of April 10-16, the CDC reported.

Uptake of the COVID vaccine, however, continued to slide since spiking in January. Initial vaccinations for the latest available week (April 14-20) were down to 48,000 from 59,000 the week before in children aged 5-11 years and 35,000 (vs. 47,000) for those aged 12-17. The weekly highs hit 500,000 and 331,000, respectively, during the Omicron surge, the AAP reported based on CDC data.

Among children aged 5-11, the CDC said that 35.0% had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of April 25 and that 28.3% are fully vaccinated, with corresponding figures of 68.8% and 58.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds on April 25.

Among the states, the highest vaccination rates generally are found in New England and the lowest in the Southeast. In Alabama, just 15% of children aged 5-11 have received an initial dose of the vaccine, compared with 66% in Vermont, while Wyoming is the lowest (41%) for children aged 12-17 and Massachusetts is the highest (96%), the AAP said in a separate report.

[email protected]

One year after hospitalization for COVID-19 only a minority of people feel fully recovered, with being female, obesity, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital risk factors for not feeling fully recovered.

In the new U.K. study of more than 2,000 patients, presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022), and published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, research showed that one in four patients feel fully well again 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19.

For their study, researchers from the University of Leicester used data from the post-hospitalization COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) prospective, longitudinal cohort study, which assessed adults aged 18 years and over who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 across the United Kingdom and subsequently discharged. The researchers assessed the recovery of 2,320 participants discharged from 39 U.K. hospitals between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, who were assessed via patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and at 1 year after hospital discharge. Blood samples were taken at the 5-month visit to be analyzed for the presence of various inflammatory proteins.

All participants were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 participants (33%) completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits at the time of the analysis. The study is ongoing. The 807 patients were mean age of 59 years, 36% were women, and 28% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was similar between 5 months (26%) and 1 year (29%).
 

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

Being female, obese, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital makes someone 32%, 50%, and 58%, respectively, less likely to feel fully recovered 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalization, the authors said.

“We found female sex and obesity were major risk factors for not recovering at one year,” said the researchers, led by Rachael Evans, PhD, Louise V. Wain, and Christopher E. Brightling, PhD, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester.

The authors said fatigue, muscle pain, physically slowing down, poor sleep, and breathlessness were most common ongoing long COVID symptoms. They noted how the total number and range of ongoing symptoms at 1 year was “striking,” positively associated with the severity of long COVID, and emphasizes the “multisystem nature of long COVID.”
 

Several inflammatory mediators increased

An earlier publication from this study identified four groups or “clusters” of symptom severity at 5 months, which were confirmed by this new study at 1 year, the authors said. They reported that 20% had very severe physical and mental health impairment, 30% had severe physical and mental health impairment, 11% had moderate physical health impairment with cognitive impairment, and 39% had mild mental and physical health impairment.

They added that having obesity, reduced exercise capacity, a greater number of symptoms, and increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with the “more severe clusters.” In both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were higher when compared with the mild cluster.

“The limited recovery from 5 months to 1 year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment, and quality-of-life is striking,” the researchers noted.

“In our clusters, female sex and obesity were also associated with more severe ongoing health impairments including reduced exercise performance and health-related quality of life at one year,” and suggested that this potentially highlighted a group that “might need higher intensity interventions such as supervised rehabilitation,” they added.

There are no specific therapeutics for long COVID, the researchers said, noting that “effective interventions are urgently required.” The persistent systemic inflammation identified, particularly in those in the very severe and moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, suggested that these groups “might respond to anti-inflammatory strategies,” the authors wrote.

“We found that a minority of participants felt fully recovered 1 year after hospital discharge, with minimal improvement after a 5-month assessment,” they noted.

They added that the findings suggest the need for complex interventions that target both physical and mental health impairments to alleviate symptoms, and that specific therapeutic approaches to manage posttraumatic stress disorder might also be needed. The authors pointed out how “pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed,” with a “precision-medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.”

They said their study highlighted the “urgent need for health-care services to support the large and rapidly increasing patient population in whom a substantial burden of symptoms exist, including reduced exercise capacity and substantially decreased health-related quality of life one year after hospital discharge.”

They warned that without effective treatments, long COVID could become a “highly prevalent new long-term condition.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

One year after hospitalization for COVID-19 only a minority of people feel fully recovered, with being female, obesity, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital risk factors for not feeling fully recovered.

In the new U.K. study of more than 2,000 patients, presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022), and published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, research showed that one in four patients feel fully well again 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19.

For their study, researchers from the University of Leicester used data from the post-hospitalization COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) prospective, longitudinal cohort study, which assessed adults aged 18 years and over who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 across the United Kingdom and subsequently discharged. The researchers assessed the recovery of 2,320 participants discharged from 39 U.K. hospitals between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, who were assessed via patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and at 1 year after hospital discharge. Blood samples were taken at the 5-month visit to be analyzed for the presence of various inflammatory proteins.

All participants were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 participants (33%) completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits at the time of the analysis. The study is ongoing. The 807 patients were mean age of 59 years, 36% were women, and 28% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was similar between 5 months (26%) and 1 year (29%).
 

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

Being female, obese, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital makes someone 32%, 50%, and 58%, respectively, less likely to feel fully recovered 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalization, the authors said.

“We found female sex and obesity were major risk factors for not recovering at one year,” said the researchers, led by Rachael Evans, PhD, Louise V. Wain, and Christopher E. Brightling, PhD, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester.

The authors said fatigue, muscle pain, physically slowing down, poor sleep, and breathlessness were most common ongoing long COVID symptoms. They noted how the total number and range of ongoing symptoms at 1 year was “striking,” positively associated with the severity of long COVID, and emphasizes the “multisystem nature of long COVID.”
 

Several inflammatory mediators increased

An earlier publication from this study identified four groups or “clusters” of symptom severity at 5 months, which were confirmed by this new study at 1 year, the authors said. They reported that 20% had very severe physical and mental health impairment, 30% had severe physical and mental health impairment, 11% had moderate physical health impairment with cognitive impairment, and 39% had mild mental and physical health impairment.

They added that having obesity, reduced exercise capacity, a greater number of symptoms, and increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with the “more severe clusters.” In both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were higher when compared with the mild cluster.

“The limited recovery from 5 months to 1 year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment, and quality-of-life is striking,” the researchers noted.

“In our clusters, female sex and obesity were also associated with more severe ongoing health impairments including reduced exercise performance and health-related quality of life at one year,” and suggested that this potentially highlighted a group that “might need higher intensity interventions such as supervised rehabilitation,” they added.

There are no specific therapeutics for long COVID, the researchers said, noting that “effective interventions are urgently required.” The persistent systemic inflammation identified, particularly in those in the very severe and moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, suggested that these groups “might respond to anti-inflammatory strategies,” the authors wrote.

“We found that a minority of participants felt fully recovered 1 year after hospital discharge, with minimal improvement after a 5-month assessment,” they noted.

They added that the findings suggest the need for complex interventions that target both physical and mental health impairments to alleviate symptoms, and that specific therapeutic approaches to manage posttraumatic stress disorder might also be needed. The authors pointed out how “pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed,” with a “precision-medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.”

They said their study highlighted the “urgent need for health-care services to support the large and rapidly increasing patient population in whom a substantial burden of symptoms exist, including reduced exercise capacity and substantially decreased health-related quality of life one year after hospital discharge.”

They warned that without effective treatments, long COVID could become a “highly prevalent new long-term condition.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

One year after hospitalization for COVID-19 only a minority of people feel fully recovered, with being female, obesity, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital risk factors for not feeling fully recovered.

In the new U.K. study of more than 2,000 patients, presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID 2022), and published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, research showed that one in four patients feel fully well again 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19.

For their study, researchers from the University of Leicester used data from the post-hospitalization COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) prospective, longitudinal cohort study, which assessed adults aged 18 years and over who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 across the United Kingdom and subsequently discharged. The researchers assessed the recovery of 2,320 participants discharged from 39 U.K. hospitals between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, who were assessed via patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and at 1 year after hospital discharge. Blood samples were taken at the 5-month visit to be analyzed for the presence of various inflammatory proteins.

All participants were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 participants (33%) completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits at the time of the analysis. The study is ongoing. The 807 patients were mean age of 59 years, 36% were women, and 28% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was similar between 5 months (26%) and 1 year (29%).
 

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

Being female, obese, and having had mechanical ventilation in hospital makes someone 32%, 50%, and 58%, respectively, less likely to feel fully recovered 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalization, the authors said.

“We found female sex and obesity were major risk factors for not recovering at one year,” said the researchers, led by Rachael Evans, PhD, Louise V. Wain, and Christopher E. Brightling, PhD, National Institute for Health Research, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, University of Leicester.

The authors said fatigue, muscle pain, physically slowing down, poor sleep, and breathlessness were most common ongoing long COVID symptoms. They noted how the total number and range of ongoing symptoms at 1 year was “striking,” positively associated with the severity of long COVID, and emphasizes the “multisystem nature of long COVID.”
 

Several inflammatory mediators increased

An earlier publication from this study identified four groups or “clusters” of symptom severity at 5 months, which were confirmed by this new study at 1 year, the authors said. They reported that 20% had very severe physical and mental health impairment, 30% had severe physical and mental health impairment, 11% had moderate physical health impairment with cognitive impairment, and 39% had mild mental and physical health impairment.

They added that having obesity, reduced exercise capacity, a greater number of symptoms, and increased levels of C-reactive protein were associated with the “more severe clusters.” In both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were higher when compared with the mild cluster.

“The limited recovery from 5 months to 1 year after hospitalisation in our study across symptoms, mental health, exercise capacity, organ impairment, and quality-of-life is striking,” the researchers noted.

“In our clusters, female sex and obesity were also associated with more severe ongoing health impairments including reduced exercise performance and health-related quality of life at one year,” and suggested that this potentially highlighted a group that “might need higher intensity interventions such as supervised rehabilitation,” they added.

There are no specific therapeutics for long COVID, the researchers said, noting that “effective interventions are urgently required.” The persistent systemic inflammation identified, particularly in those in the very severe and moderate with cognitive impairment clusters, suggested that these groups “might respond to anti-inflammatory strategies,” the authors wrote.

“We found that a minority of participants felt fully recovered 1 year after hospital discharge, with minimal improvement after a 5-month assessment,” they noted.

They added that the findings suggest the need for complex interventions that target both physical and mental health impairments to alleviate symptoms, and that specific therapeutic approaches to manage posttraumatic stress disorder might also be needed. The authors pointed out how “pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions are urgently needed,” with a “precision-medicine approach with potential treatable traits of systemic inflammation and obesity.”

They said their study highlighted the “urgent need for health-care services to support the large and rapidly increasing patient population in whom a substantial burden of symptoms exist, including reduced exercise capacity and substantially decreased health-related quality of life one year after hospital discharge.”

They warned that without effective treatments, long COVID could become a “highly prevalent new long-term condition.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Political elections can be hard on the heart, suggests a study that showed a substantial uptick in hospital admissions for acute cardiovascular conditions immediately after the 2020 American presidential election.

The analysis of nearly 6.4 million adults showed that the rate of hospitalization for acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 17% higher in the 5 days after the election than in a 5-day period 2 weeks earlier.

The rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 42% higher, with no significant difference for heart failure or stroke hospital admissions.

“These findings suggest that awareness of the heightened risk of CVD and strategies to mitigate risk during notable political events are needed,” write Matthew T. Mefford, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, and colleagues.

The study was published in the April issue of JAMA Network Open.
 

Stress and the heart

In the American Psychological Association Stress in America 2020 survey conducted roughly 3 months before the 2020 presidential election, 77% of adults cited the future of the country as a substantial source of stress, enhanced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the authors note. More than two-thirds said the election was a substantial source of stress.

Dr. Mefford and colleagues compared CVD hospitalizations at Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California hospitals in the 5-day risk window of Nov. 4-8, 2020, with the control window of Oct. 21-25, 2020.

There were 666 CVD hospitalizations (760.47 per 100,000 person-years [PY]) in the risk window, compared with 569 (647.97 per 100,000 PY) in the control window (rate ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.31).

There were also significantly more hospitalizations for AMI immediately after the election than before (179 vs. 126 AMI hospitalizations; 204.4 vs. 143.5 per 100,000 PY; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.79).

There was no significant difference between the risk and control periods for hospitalizations because of stroke or heart failure.

The study also suggests higher rates of acute CVD after the election in older adults, men, and White individuals. Political affiliation was not examined in the study.

“Importantly, results were consistent before and after excluding patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection,” the study team notes.

Yet, the potential influence of COVID-19 stressors on increasing CVD risk cannot be ruled out, they say.

However, COVID-19 stressors occurred over a much longer period and are less likely to explain the transient risks observed in the defined risk and control windows that are in close proximity to the 2020 election, the investigators point out.

There is growing evidence that psychological health contributes to CVD.

Previous studies shown a higher risk for acute CVD around population-wide psychosocial or environmental stressors, but less was known about acute CVD risk in relation to political events.

The researchers note future studies evaluating stress-relieving interventions may be important for understanding the intersection of political events, associated stress, and acute CVD risk.

Partial funding for the study was provided by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Political elections can be hard on the heart, suggests a study that showed a substantial uptick in hospital admissions for acute cardiovascular conditions immediately after the 2020 American presidential election.

The analysis of nearly 6.4 million adults showed that the rate of hospitalization for acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 17% higher in the 5 days after the election than in a 5-day period 2 weeks earlier.

The rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 42% higher, with no significant difference for heart failure or stroke hospital admissions.

“These findings suggest that awareness of the heightened risk of CVD and strategies to mitigate risk during notable political events are needed,” write Matthew T. Mefford, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, and colleagues.

The study was published in the April issue of JAMA Network Open.
 

Stress and the heart

In the American Psychological Association Stress in America 2020 survey conducted roughly 3 months before the 2020 presidential election, 77% of adults cited the future of the country as a substantial source of stress, enhanced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the authors note. More than two-thirds said the election was a substantial source of stress.

Dr. Mefford and colleagues compared CVD hospitalizations at Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California hospitals in the 5-day risk window of Nov. 4-8, 2020, with the control window of Oct. 21-25, 2020.

There were 666 CVD hospitalizations (760.47 per 100,000 person-years [PY]) in the risk window, compared with 569 (647.97 per 100,000 PY) in the control window (rate ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.31).

There were also significantly more hospitalizations for AMI immediately after the election than before (179 vs. 126 AMI hospitalizations; 204.4 vs. 143.5 per 100,000 PY; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.79).

There was no significant difference between the risk and control periods for hospitalizations because of stroke or heart failure.

The study also suggests higher rates of acute CVD after the election in older adults, men, and White individuals. Political affiliation was not examined in the study.

“Importantly, results were consistent before and after excluding patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection,” the study team notes.

Yet, the potential influence of COVID-19 stressors on increasing CVD risk cannot be ruled out, they say.

However, COVID-19 stressors occurred over a much longer period and are less likely to explain the transient risks observed in the defined risk and control windows that are in close proximity to the 2020 election, the investigators point out.

There is growing evidence that psychological health contributes to CVD.

Previous studies shown a higher risk for acute CVD around population-wide psychosocial or environmental stressors, but less was known about acute CVD risk in relation to political events.

The researchers note future studies evaluating stress-relieving interventions may be important for understanding the intersection of political events, associated stress, and acute CVD risk.

Partial funding for the study was provided by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Political elections can be hard on the heart, suggests a study that showed a substantial uptick in hospital admissions for acute cardiovascular conditions immediately after the 2020 American presidential election.

The analysis of nearly 6.4 million adults showed that the rate of hospitalization for acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 17% higher in the 5 days after the election than in a 5-day period 2 weeks earlier.

The rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was 42% higher, with no significant difference for heart failure or stroke hospital admissions.

“These findings suggest that awareness of the heightened risk of CVD and strategies to mitigate risk during notable political events are needed,” write Matthew T. Mefford, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, and colleagues.

The study was published in the April issue of JAMA Network Open.
 

Stress and the heart

In the American Psychological Association Stress in America 2020 survey conducted roughly 3 months before the 2020 presidential election, 77% of adults cited the future of the country as a substantial source of stress, enhanced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the authors note. More than two-thirds said the election was a substantial source of stress.

Dr. Mefford and colleagues compared CVD hospitalizations at Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California hospitals in the 5-day risk window of Nov. 4-8, 2020, with the control window of Oct. 21-25, 2020.

There were 666 CVD hospitalizations (760.47 per 100,000 person-years [PY]) in the risk window, compared with 569 (647.97 per 100,000 PY) in the control window (rate ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.31).

There were also significantly more hospitalizations for AMI immediately after the election than before (179 vs. 126 AMI hospitalizations; 204.4 vs. 143.5 per 100,000 PY; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.79).

There was no significant difference between the risk and control periods for hospitalizations because of stroke or heart failure.

The study also suggests higher rates of acute CVD after the election in older adults, men, and White individuals. Political affiliation was not examined in the study.

“Importantly, results were consistent before and after excluding patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection,” the study team notes.

Yet, the potential influence of COVID-19 stressors on increasing CVD risk cannot be ruled out, they say.

However, COVID-19 stressors occurred over a much longer period and are less likely to explain the transient risks observed in the defined risk and control windows that are in close proximity to the 2020 election, the investigators point out.

There is growing evidence that psychological health contributes to CVD.

Previous studies shown a higher risk for acute CVD around population-wide psychosocial or environmental stressors, but less was known about acute CVD risk in relation to political events.

The researchers note future studies evaluating stress-relieving interventions may be important for understanding the intersection of political events, associated stress, and acute CVD risk.

Partial funding for the study was provided by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

MADRID, Spain – Individuals with substance use disorders are at higher risk of being infected by and dying from COVID-19 – even if they are fully vaccinated – compared with the general population. Such are the findings of a line of research led by Mexican psychiatrist Nora Volkow, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

A pioneer in the use of brain imaging to investigate how substance use affects brain functions and one of Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” she led the Inaugural Conference at the XXXI Congress of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology “Drugs and Actions During the Pandemic.” Dr. Volkow spoke about the effects that the current health crisis has had on drug use and the social challenges that arose from lockdowns. She also presented and discussed the results of studies being conducted at NIDA that “are aimed at reviewing what we’ve learned and what the consequences of COVID-19 have been with respect to substance abuse disorder.”

As Dr. Volkow pointed out, drugs affect much more than just the brain. “In particular, the heart, the lungs, the immune system – all of these are significantly harmed by substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been worried about seeing what consequences SARS-CoV-2 was going to have on users of these substances, especially in light of the great toll this disease takes on the respiratory system and the vascular system.”
 

Pulmonary ‘predisposition’ and race

Dr. Volkow and her team launched several studies to get a more thorough understanding of the link between substance abuse disorders and poor COVID-19 prognoses. One of them was based on analyses from electronic health records in the United States. The purpose was to determine COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients based on the type of use disorder (for example, alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine).

“The results showed that regardless of the drug type, all users of these substances had both a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and a higher death rate in comparison with the rest of the population,” said Dr. Volkow. “This surprised us, because there’s no evidence that drugs themselves make the virus more infectious. However, what the results did clearly indicate to us was that using these substances was associated with behavior that put these individuals at a greater risk for infection,” Dr. Volkow explained.

“In addition,” she continued, “using, for example, tobacco or cannabis causes inflammation in the lungs. It seems that, as a result, they end up being more vulnerable to infection by COVID. And this has consequences, above all, in terms of mortality.”

Another finding was that, among patients with substance use disorders, race had the largest effect on COVID risk. “From the very start, we saw that, compared with White individuals, Black individuals showed a much higher risk of not only getting COVID, but also dying from it,” said Dr. Volkow. “Therefore, on the one hand, our data show that drug users are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and, on the other hand, they reflect that within this group, Black individuals are even more vulnerable.”

In her presentation, Dr. Volkow drew particular attention to the impact that social surroundings have on these patients and the decisive role they played in terms of vulnerability. “It’s a very complex issue, what with the various factors at play: family, social environment. ... A person living in an at-risk situation can more easily get drugs or even prescription medication, which can also be abused.”

The psychiatrist stressed that when it comes to addictive disorders (and related questions such as prevention, treatment, and social reintegration), one of the most crucial factors has to do with the individual’s social support structures. “The studies also brought to light the role that social interaction has as an inhibitory factor with regard to drug use,” said Dr. Volkow. “And indeed, adequate adherence to treatment requires that the necessary support systems be maintained.”

In the context of the pandemic, this social aspect was also key, especially concerning the high death rate among substance use disorder patients with COVID-19. “There are very significant social determinants, such as the stigma associated with these groups – a stigma that makes these individuals more likely to hesitate to seek out treatment for diseases that may be starting to take hold, in this case COVID-19.”

On that note, Dr. Volkow emphasized the importance of treating drug addicts as though they had a chronic disease in need of treatment. “In fact, the prevalence of pathologies such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and dementia is much higher in these individuals than in the general population,” she said. “However, this isn’t widely known. The data reflect that not only the prevalence of these diseases, but also the severity of the symptoms, is higher, and this has a lot to do with these individuals’ reticence when it comes to reaching out for medical care. Added to that are the effects of their economic situation and other factors, such as stress (which can trigger a relapse), lack of ready access to medications, and limited access to community support or other sources of social connection.”
 

Opioids and COVID-19

As for drug use during the pandemic, Dr. Volkow provided context by mentioning that in the United States, the experts and authorities have spent two decades fighting the epidemic of opioid-related drug overdoses, which has caused many deaths. “And on top of this epidemic – one that we still haven’t been able to get control of – there’s the situation brought about by COVID-19. So, we had to see the consequences of a pandemic crossing paths with an epidemic.”

The United States’s epidemic of overdose deaths started with the use of opioid painkillers, medications which are overprescribed. Another issue that the United States faces is that many drugs are contaminated with fentanyl. This contamination has caused an increase in deaths.

“In the United States, fentanyl is everywhere,” said Dr. Volkow. “And what’s more concerning: almost a third of this fentanyl comes in pills that are sold as benzodiazepines. With this comes a high risk for overdose. In line with this, we saw overdose deaths among adolescents nearly double in 1 year, an increase which is likely related to these contaminated pills. It’s a risk that’s just below the surface. We’ve got to be vigilant, because this phenomenon is expected to eventually spread to Europe. After all, these pills are very cheap, hence the rapid increase in their use.”

To provide figures on drug use and overdose deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Volkow referred to COVID-19 data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data indicate that of the 70,630 drug overdose deaths that occurred in 2019, 49,860 involved opioids (whether prescribed or illicit). “And these numbers have continued to rise, so much so that the current situation can be classified as catastrophic – because this increase has been even greater during the pandemic due to the rise in the use of all drugs,” said Dr. Volkow.

Dr. Volkow referred to an NCHS study that looked at the period between September 2020 and September 2021, finding a 15.9% increase in the number of drug overdose deaths. A breakdown of these data shows that the highest percentage corresponds to deaths from “other psychostimulants,” primarily methamphetamines (35.7%). This category is followed by deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl (25.8%), and deaths from cocaine (13.4%).

“These figures indicate that, for the first time in history, the United States had over 100,000 overdose deaths in 1 year,” said Dr. Volkow. “This is something that has never happened. We can only infer that the pandemic had a hand in making the overdose crisis even worse than it already was.”

As Dr. Volkow explained, policies related to handling overdoses and prescribing medications have been changed in the context of COVID-19. Addiction treatment consequently has been provided through a larger number of telehealth services, and measures such as greater access to treatment for comorbid conditions, expanded access to behavioral treatments, and the establishment of mental health hotlines have been undertaken.
 

Children’s cognitive development

Dr. Volkow also spoke about another of NIDA’s current subjects of research: The role that damage or compromise from drugs has on the neural circuits involved in reinforcement systems. “It’s important that we make people aware of the significance of what’s at play there, because the greatest damage that can be inflicted on the brain comes from using any type of drug during adolescence. In these cases, the likelihood of having an addictive disorder as an adult significantly increases.”

Within this framework, her team has also investigated the impact of the pandemic on the cognitive development of infants under 1 year of age. One of these studies was a pilot program in which pregnant women participated. “We found that children born during the pandemic had lower cognitive development: n = 112 versus n = 554 of those born before January 2019.”

“None of the mothers or children in the study had been infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Volkow explained. “But the results clearly reflect the negative effect of the circumstances brought about by the pandemic, especially the high level of stress, the isolation, and the lack of stimuli. Another study, currently in preprint, is based on imaging. It analyzed the impact on myelination in children not exposed to COVID-19 but born during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic infants. The data showed significantly reduced areas of myelin development (P < .05) in those born after 2019. And the researchers didn’t find significant differences in gestation duration or birth weight.”

The longitudinal characteristics of these studies will let us see whether a change in these individuals’ social circumstances over time also brings to light cognitive changes, even the recovery of lost or underdeveloped cognitive processes, Dr. Volkow concluded.

Dr. Volkow has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID, Spain – Individuals with substance use disorders are at higher risk of being infected by and dying from COVID-19 – even if they are fully vaccinated – compared with the general population. Such are the findings of a line of research led by Mexican psychiatrist Nora Volkow, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

A pioneer in the use of brain imaging to investigate how substance use affects brain functions and one of Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” she led the Inaugural Conference at the XXXI Congress of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology “Drugs and Actions During the Pandemic.” Dr. Volkow spoke about the effects that the current health crisis has had on drug use and the social challenges that arose from lockdowns. She also presented and discussed the results of studies being conducted at NIDA that “are aimed at reviewing what we’ve learned and what the consequences of COVID-19 have been with respect to substance abuse disorder.”

As Dr. Volkow pointed out, drugs affect much more than just the brain. “In particular, the heart, the lungs, the immune system – all of these are significantly harmed by substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been worried about seeing what consequences SARS-CoV-2 was going to have on users of these substances, especially in light of the great toll this disease takes on the respiratory system and the vascular system.”
 

Pulmonary ‘predisposition’ and race

Dr. Volkow and her team launched several studies to get a more thorough understanding of the link between substance abuse disorders and poor COVID-19 prognoses. One of them was based on analyses from electronic health records in the United States. The purpose was to determine COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients based on the type of use disorder (for example, alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine).

“The results showed that regardless of the drug type, all users of these substances had both a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and a higher death rate in comparison with the rest of the population,” said Dr. Volkow. “This surprised us, because there’s no evidence that drugs themselves make the virus more infectious. However, what the results did clearly indicate to us was that using these substances was associated with behavior that put these individuals at a greater risk for infection,” Dr. Volkow explained.

“In addition,” she continued, “using, for example, tobacco or cannabis causes inflammation in the lungs. It seems that, as a result, they end up being more vulnerable to infection by COVID. And this has consequences, above all, in terms of mortality.”

Another finding was that, among patients with substance use disorders, race had the largest effect on COVID risk. “From the very start, we saw that, compared with White individuals, Black individuals showed a much higher risk of not only getting COVID, but also dying from it,” said Dr. Volkow. “Therefore, on the one hand, our data show that drug users are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and, on the other hand, they reflect that within this group, Black individuals are even more vulnerable.”

In her presentation, Dr. Volkow drew particular attention to the impact that social surroundings have on these patients and the decisive role they played in terms of vulnerability. “It’s a very complex issue, what with the various factors at play: family, social environment. ... A person living in an at-risk situation can more easily get drugs or even prescription medication, which can also be abused.”

The psychiatrist stressed that when it comes to addictive disorders (and related questions such as prevention, treatment, and social reintegration), one of the most crucial factors has to do with the individual’s social support structures. “The studies also brought to light the role that social interaction has as an inhibitory factor with regard to drug use,” said Dr. Volkow. “And indeed, adequate adherence to treatment requires that the necessary support systems be maintained.”

In the context of the pandemic, this social aspect was also key, especially concerning the high death rate among substance use disorder patients with COVID-19. “There are very significant social determinants, such as the stigma associated with these groups – a stigma that makes these individuals more likely to hesitate to seek out treatment for diseases that may be starting to take hold, in this case COVID-19.”

On that note, Dr. Volkow emphasized the importance of treating drug addicts as though they had a chronic disease in need of treatment. “In fact, the prevalence of pathologies such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and dementia is much higher in these individuals than in the general population,” she said. “However, this isn’t widely known. The data reflect that not only the prevalence of these diseases, but also the severity of the symptoms, is higher, and this has a lot to do with these individuals’ reticence when it comes to reaching out for medical care. Added to that are the effects of their economic situation and other factors, such as stress (which can trigger a relapse), lack of ready access to medications, and limited access to community support or other sources of social connection.”
 

Opioids and COVID-19

As for drug use during the pandemic, Dr. Volkow provided context by mentioning that in the United States, the experts and authorities have spent two decades fighting the epidemic of opioid-related drug overdoses, which has caused many deaths. “And on top of this epidemic – one that we still haven’t been able to get control of – there’s the situation brought about by COVID-19. So, we had to see the consequences of a pandemic crossing paths with an epidemic.”

The United States’s epidemic of overdose deaths started with the use of opioid painkillers, medications which are overprescribed. Another issue that the United States faces is that many drugs are contaminated with fentanyl. This contamination has caused an increase in deaths.

“In the United States, fentanyl is everywhere,” said Dr. Volkow. “And what’s more concerning: almost a third of this fentanyl comes in pills that are sold as benzodiazepines. With this comes a high risk for overdose. In line with this, we saw overdose deaths among adolescents nearly double in 1 year, an increase which is likely related to these contaminated pills. It’s a risk that’s just below the surface. We’ve got to be vigilant, because this phenomenon is expected to eventually spread to Europe. After all, these pills are very cheap, hence the rapid increase in their use.”

To provide figures on drug use and overdose deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Volkow referred to COVID-19 data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data indicate that of the 70,630 drug overdose deaths that occurred in 2019, 49,860 involved opioids (whether prescribed or illicit). “And these numbers have continued to rise, so much so that the current situation can be classified as catastrophic – because this increase has been even greater during the pandemic due to the rise in the use of all drugs,” said Dr. Volkow.

Dr. Volkow referred to an NCHS study that looked at the period between September 2020 and September 2021, finding a 15.9% increase in the number of drug overdose deaths. A breakdown of these data shows that the highest percentage corresponds to deaths from “other psychostimulants,” primarily methamphetamines (35.7%). This category is followed by deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl (25.8%), and deaths from cocaine (13.4%).

“These figures indicate that, for the first time in history, the United States had over 100,000 overdose deaths in 1 year,” said Dr. Volkow. “This is something that has never happened. We can only infer that the pandemic had a hand in making the overdose crisis even worse than it already was.”

As Dr. Volkow explained, policies related to handling overdoses and prescribing medications have been changed in the context of COVID-19. Addiction treatment consequently has been provided through a larger number of telehealth services, and measures such as greater access to treatment for comorbid conditions, expanded access to behavioral treatments, and the establishment of mental health hotlines have been undertaken.
 

Children’s cognitive development

Dr. Volkow also spoke about another of NIDA’s current subjects of research: The role that damage or compromise from drugs has on the neural circuits involved in reinforcement systems. “It’s important that we make people aware of the significance of what’s at play there, because the greatest damage that can be inflicted on the brain comes from using any type of drug during adolescence. In these cases, the likelihood of having an addictive disorder as an adult significantly increases.”

Within this framework, her team has also investigated the impact of the pandemic on the cognitive development of infants under 1 year of age. One of these studies was a pilot program in which pregnant women participated. “We found that children born during the pandemic had lower cognitive development: n = 112 versus n = 554 of those born before January 2019.”

“None of the mothers or children in the study had been infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Volkow explained. “But the results clearly reflect the negative effect of the circumstances brought about by the pandemic, especially the high level of stress, the isolation, and the lack of stimuli. Another study, currently in preprint, is based on imaging. It analyzed the impact on myelination in children not exposed to COVID-19 but born during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic infants. The data showed significantly reduced areas of myelin development (P < .05) in those born after 2019. And the researchers didn’t find significant differences in gestation duration or birth weight.”

The longitudinal characteristics of these studies will let us see whether a change in these individuals’ social circumstances over time also brings to light cognitive changes, even the recovery of lost or underdeveloped cognitive processes, Dr. Volkow concluded.

Dr. Volkow has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID, Spain – Individuals with substance use disorders are at higher risk of being infected by and dying from COVID-19 – even if they are fully vaccinated – compared with the general population. Such are the findings of a line of research led by Mexican psychiatrist Nora Volkow, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

A pioneer in the use of brain imaging to investigate how substance use affects brain functions and one of Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World,” she led the Inaugural Conference at the XXXI Congress of the Spanish Society of Clinical Pharmacology “Drugs and Actions During the Pandemic.” Dr. Volkow spoke about the effects that the current health crisis has had on drug use and the social challenges that arose from lockdowns. She also presented and discussed the results of studies being conducted at NIDA that “are aimed at reviewing what we’ve learned and what the consequences of COVID-19 have been with respect to substance abuse disorder.”

As Dr. Volkow pointed out, drugs affect much more than just the brain. “In particular, the heart, the lungs, the immune system – all of these are significantly harmed by substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine. This is why, since the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been worried about seeing what consequences SARS-CoV-2 was going to have on users of these substances, especially in light of the great toll this disease takes on the respiratory system and the vascular system.”
 

Pulmonary ‘predisposition’ and race

Dr. Volkow and her team launched several studies to get a more thorough understanding of the link between substance abuse disorders and poor COVID-19 prognoses. One of them was based on analyses from electronic health records in the United States. The purpose was to determine COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients based on the type of use disorder (for example, alcohol, opioid, cannabis, cocaine).

“The results showed that regardless of the drug type, all users of these substances had both a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and a higher death rate in comparison with the rest of the population,” said Dr. Volkow. “This surprised us, because there’s no evidence that drugs themselves make the virus more infectious. However, what the results did clearly indicate to us was that using these substances was associated with behavior that put these individuals at a greater risk for infection,” Dr. Volkow explained.

“In addition,” she continued, “using, for example, tobacco or cannabis causes inflammation in the lungs. It seems that, as a result, they end up being more vulnerable to infection by COVID. And this has consequences, above all, in terms of mortality.”

Another finding was that, among patients with substance use disorders, race had the largest effect on COVID risk. “From the very start, we saw that, compared with White individuals, Black individuals showed a much higher risk of not only getting COVID, but also dying from it,” said Dr. Volkow. “Therefore, on the one hand, our data show that drug users are more vulnerable to COVID-19 and, on the other hand, they reflect that within this group, Black individuals are even more vulnerable.”

In her presentation, Dr. Volkow drew particular attention to the impact that social surroundings have on these patients and the decisive role they played in terms of vulnerability. “It’s a very complex issue, what with the various factors at play: family, social environment. ... A person living in an at-risk situation can more easily get drugs or even prescription medication, which can also be abused.”

The psychiatrist stressed that when it comes to addictive disorders (and related questions such as prevention, treatment, and social reintegration), one of the most crucial factors has to do with the individual’s social support structures. “The studies also brought to light the role that social interaction has as an inhibitory factor with regard to drug use,” said Dr. Volkow. “And indeed, adequate adherence to treatment requires that the necessary support systems be maintained.”

In the context of the pandemic, this social aspect was also key, especially concerning the high death rate among substance use disorder patients with COVID-19. “There are very significant social determinants, such as the stigma associated with these groups – a stigma that makes these individuals more likely to hesitate to seek out treatment for diseases that may be starting to take hold, in this case COVID-19.”

On that note, Dr. Volkow emphasized the importance of treating drug addicts as though they had a chronic disease in need of treatment. “In fact, the prevalence of pathologies such as hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and dementia is much higher in these individuals than in the general population,” she said. “However, this isn’t widely known. The data reflect that not only the prevalence of these diseases, but also the severity of the symptoms, is higher, and this has a lot to do with these individuals’ reticence when it comes to reaching out for medical care. Added to that are the effects of their economic situation and other factors, such as stress (which can trigger a relapse), lack of ready access to medications, and limited access to community support or other sources of social connection.”
 

Opioids and COVID-19

As for drug use during the pandemic, Dr. Volkow provided context by mentioning that in the United States, the experts and authorities have spent two decades fighting the epidemic of opioid-related drug overdoses, which has caused many deaths. “And on top of this epidemic – one that we still haven’t been able to get control of – there’s the situation brought about by COVID-19. So, we had to see the consequences of a pandemic crossing paths with an epidemic.”

The United States’s epidemic of overdose deaths started with the use of opioid painkillers, medications which are overprescribed. Another issue that the United States faces is that many drugs are contaminated with fentanyl. This contamination has caused an increase in deaths.

“In the United States, fentanyl is everywhere,” said Dr. Volkow. “And what’s more concerning: almost a third of this fentanyl comes in pills that are sold as benzodiazepines. With this comes a high risk for overdose. In line with this, we saw overdose deaths among adolescents nearly double in 1 year, an increase which is likely related to these contaminated pills. It’s a risk that’s just below the surface. We’ve got to be vigilant, because this phenomenon is expected to eventually spread to Europe. After all, these pills are very cheap, hence the rapid increase in their use.”

To provide figures on drug use and overdose deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Volkow referred to COVID-19 data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data indicate that of the 70,630 drug overdose deaths that occurred in 2019, 49,860 involved opioids (whether prescribed or illicit). “And these numbers have continued to rise, so much so that the current situation can be classified as catastrophic – because this increase has been even greater during the pandemic due to the rise in the use of all drugs,” said Dr. Volkow.

Dr. Volkow referred to an NCHS study that looked at the period between September 2020 and September 2021, finding a 15.9% increase in the number of drug overdose deaths. A breakdown of these data shows that the highest percentage corresponds to deaths from “other psychostimulants,” primarily methamphetamines (35.7%). This category is followed by deaths involving synthetic opioids, mostly illicit fentanyl (25.8%), and deaths from cocaine (13.4%).

“These figures indicate that, for the first time in history, the United States had over 100,000 overdose deaths in 1 year,” said Dr. Volkow. “This is something that has never happened. We can only infer that the pandemic had a hand in making the overdose crisis even worse than it already was.”

As Dr. Volkow explained, policies related to handling overdoses and prescribing medications have been changed in the context of COVID-19. Addiction treatment consequently has been provided through a larger number of telehealth services, and measures such as greater access to treatment for comorbid conditions, expanded access to behavioral treatments, and the establishment of mental health hotlines have been undertaken.
 

Children’s cognitive development

Dr. Volkow also spoke about another of NIDA’s current subjects of research: The role that damage or compromise from drugs has on the neural circuits involved in reinforcement systems. “It’s important that we make people aware of the significance of what’s at play there, because the greatest damage that can be inflicted on the brain comes from using any type of drug during adolescence. In these cases, the likelihood of having an addictive disorder as an adult significantly increases.”

Within this framework, her team has also investigated the impact of the pandemic on the cognitive development of infants under 1 year of age. One of these studies was a pilot program in which pregnant women participated. “We found that children born during the pandemic had lower cognitive development: n = 112 versus n = 554 of those born before January 2019.”

“None of the mothers or children in the study had been infected with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Volkow explained. “But the results clearly reflect the negative effect of the circumstances brought about by the pandemic, especially the high level of stress, the isolation, and the lack of stimuli. Another study, currently in preprint, is based on imaging. It analyzed the impact on myelination in children not exposed to COVID-19 but born during the pandemic, compared with pre-pandemic infants. The data showed significantly reduced areas of myelin development (P < .05) in those born after 2019. And the researchers didn’t find significant differences in gestation duration or birth weight.”

The longitudinal characteristics of these studies will let us see whether a change in these individuals’ social circumstances over time also brings to light cognitive changes, even the recovery of lost or underdeveloped cognitive processes, Dr. Volkow concluded.

Dr. Volkow has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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