Infectious Disease Practitioner

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

Fort Worth, Tex. – A case decision made by Texas U.S. District Judge Reed Charles O’Connor that will allow employers to deny health care insurance coverage for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is already provoking HIV activists, medical associations, nonprofits, and patients.

As this news organization first reported in August, the class action suit (Kelley v. Azar) has a broader goal – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using the argument that many of the preventive services it covers, including PrEP, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Judge O’Connor has a long history of issuing rulings against the Affordable Care Act and LGBT individuals, and we expect the case to be successfully appealed as has been the case with his previous discriminatory decisions,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute in Washington, in a prepared statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“To single out PrEP, which are FDA approved drugs that effectively prevent HIV, and conclude that its coverage violates the religious freedom of certain individuals, is plain wrong, highly discriminatory, and impedes the public health of our nation,” he said. 

PrEP is not just for men who have sex with men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million Americans could benefit from PrEP, and roughly 20% are heterosexual women – a fact both Mr. Schmid and the HIV Medicine Association pointed out in response to Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

“Denying access to PrEP threatens the health of more than 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from this potentially life saving intervention,” stated Marwan Haddad, MD, MPH, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, in a press release issued by the organization.

“This ruling is yet one more instance of unacceptable interference in scientific, evidence-based health care practices that must remain within the sanctity of the provider-patient relationship,” she said.

The ruling is also outside what is normally considered religious “conscientious objection.”

While the American Medical Association supports the rights of physicians to act in accordance with conscience, medical ethicists like Abram Brummett, PhD, assistant professor, department of foundational medical studies, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., previously told this news organization that this ruling actually reflects a phenomenon known as “conscience creep” – that is, the way conscientious objection creeps outside traditional contexts like abortion, sterilization, and organ transplantation.

Incidentally, the case is not yet completed; Judge O’Connor still has to decide on challenges to contraceptives and HPV mandates. He has requested that defendants and plaintiffs file a supplemental briefing before he makes a final decision.

Regardless of how it plays out, it is unclear whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will appeal.

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

Fort Worth, Tex. – A case decision made by Texas U.S. District Judge Reed Charles O’Connor that will allow employers to deny health care insurance coverage for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is already provoking HIV activists, medical associations, nonprofits, and patients.

As this news organization first reported in August, the class action suit (Kelley v. Azar) has a broader goal – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using the argument that many of the preventive services it covers, including PrEP, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Judge O’Connor has a long history of issuing rulings against the Affordable Care Act and LGBT individuals, and we expect the case to be successfully appealed as has been the case with his previous discriminatory decisions,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute in Washington, in a prepared statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“To single out PrEP, which are FDA approved drugs that effectively prevent HIV, and conclude that its coverage violates the religious freedom of certain individuals, is plain wrong, highly discriminatory, and impedes the public health of our nation,” he said. 

PrEP is not just for men who have sex with men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million Americans could benefit from PrEP, and roughly 20% are heterosexual women – a fact both Mr. Schmid and the HIV Medicine Association pointed out in response to Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

“Denying access to PrEP threatens the health of more than 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from this potentially life saving intervention,” stated Marwan Haddad, MD, MPH, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, in a press release issued by the organization.

“This ruling is yet one more instance of unacceptable interference in scientific, evidence-based health care practices that must remain within the sanctity of the provider-patient relationship,” she said.

The ruling is also outside what is normally considered religious “conscientious objection.”

While the American Medical Association supports the rights of physicians to act in accordance with conscience, medical ethicists like Abram Brummett, PhD, assistant professor, department of foundational medical studies, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., previously told this news organization that this ruling actually reflects a phenomenon known as “conscience creep” – that is, the way conscientious objection creeps outside traditional contexts like abortion, sterilization, and organ transplantation.

Incidentally, the case is not yet completed; Judge O’Connor still has to decide on challenges to contraceptives and HPV mandates. He has requested that defendants and plaintiffs file a supplemental briefing before he makes a final decision.

Regardless of how it plays out, it is unclear whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will appeal.

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

Fort Worth, Tex. – A case decision made by Texas U.S. District Judge Reed Charles O’Connor that will allow employers to deny health care insurance coverage for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is already provoking HIV activists, medical associations, nonprofits, and patients.

As this news organization first reported in August, the class action suit (Kelley v. Azar) has a broader goal – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using the argument that many of the preventive services it covers, including PrEP, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Judge O’Connor has a long history of issuing rulings against the Affordable Care Act and LGBT individuals, and we expect the case to be successfully appealed as has been the case with his previous discriminatory decisions,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute in Washington, in a prepared statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“To single out PrEP, which are FDA approved drugs that effectively prevent HIV, and conclude that its coverage violates the religious freedom of certain individuals, is plain wrong, highly discriminatory, and impedes the public health of our nation,” he said. 

PrEP is not just for men who have sex with men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million Americans could benefit from PrEP, and roughly 20% are heterosexual women – a fact both Mr. Schmid and the HIV Medicine Association pointed out in response to Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

“Denying access to PrEP threatens the health of more than 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from this potentially life saving intervention,” stated Marwan Haddad, MD, MPH, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, in a press release issued by the organization.

“This ruling is yet one more instance of unacceptable interference in scientific, evidence-based health care practices that must remain within the sanctity of the provider-patient relationship,” she said.

The ruling is also outside what is normally considered religious “conscientious objection.”

While the American Medical Association supports the rights of physicians to act in accordance with conscience, medical ethicists like Abram Brummett, PhD, assistant professor, department of foundational medical studies, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., previously told this news organization that this ruling actually reflects a phenomenon known as “conscience creep” – that is, the way conscientious objection creeps outside traditional contexts like abortion, sterilization, and organ transplantation.

Incidentally, the case is not yet completed; Judge O’Connor still has to decide on challenges to contraceptives and HPV mandates. He has requested that defendants and plaintiffs file a supplemental briefing before he makes a final decision.

Regardless of how it plays out, it is unclear whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will appeal.

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two large studies out of the United Kingdom and Norway show vitamin D supplementation has no benefit – as low dose, high dose, or in the form of cod liver oil supplementation – in preventing COVID-19 or acute respiratory tract infections, regardless of whether individuals are deficient or not.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The studies, published in the BMJ, underscore that “vaccination is still the most effective way to protect people from COVID-19, and vitamin D and cod liver oil supplementation should not be offered to healthy people with normal vitamin D levels,” writes Peter Bergman, MD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, in an editorial published alongside the studies.

Suboptimal levels of vitamin D are known to be associated with an increased risk of acute respiratory infections, and some observational studies have linked low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) with more severe COVID-19; however, data on a possible protective effect of vitamin D supplementation in preventing infection have been inconsistent.
 

U.K. study compares doses

To further investigate the relationship with infections, including COVID-19, in a large cohort, the authors of the first of the two BMJ studies, a phase 3 open-label trial, enrolled 6,200 people in the United Kingdom aged 16 and older between December 2020 and June 2021 who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline.

Half of participants were offered a finger-prick blood test, and of the 2,674 who accepted, 86.3% were found to have low concentrations of 25(OH)D (< 75 nmol/L). These participants were provided with vitamin D supplementation at a lower (800 IU/day; n = 1328) or higher dose (3,200 IU/day; n = 1,346) for 6 months. The other half of the group received no tests or supplements.

The results showed minimal differences between groups in terms of rates of developing at least one acute respiratory infection, which occurred in 5% of those in the lower-dose group, 5.7% in the higher-dose group, and 4.6% of participants not offered supplementation.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in the development of real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19, with rates of 3.6% in the lower-dose group, 3.0% in the higher-dose group, and 2.6% in the group not offered supplementation.

The study is “the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a test-and-treat approach for correction of suboptimal vitamin D status to prevent acute respiratory tract infections,” report the authors, led by Adrian R. Martineau, MD, PhD, of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London.

While uptake and supplementation in the study were favorable, “no statistically significant effect of either dose was seen on the primary outcome of swab test, doctor-confirmed acute respiratory tract infection, or on the major secondary outcome of swab test-confirmed COVID-19,” they conclude.
 

Traditional use of cod liver oil of benefit?

In the second study, researchers in Norway, led by Arne Soraas, MD, PhD, of the department of microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, evaluated whether that country’s long-held tradition of consuming cod liver oil during the winter to prevent vitamin D deficiency could affect the development of COVID-19 or outcomes.

For the Cod Liver Oil for COVID-19 Prevention Study (CLOC), a large cohort of 34,601 adults with a mean age of 44.9 years who were not taking daily vitamin D supplements were randomized to receive 5 mL/day of cod liver oil, representing a surrogate dose of 400 IU/day of vitamin D (n = 17,278), or placebo (n = 17,323) for up to 6 months.

In contrast with the first study, the vast majority of patients in the CLOC study (86%) had adequate vitamin D levels, defined as greater than 50 nmol/L, at baseline.

Again, however, the results showed no association between increased vitamin D supplementation with cod liver oil and PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or acute respiratory infections, with approximately 1.3% in each group testing positive for COVID-19 over a median of 164 days.

Supplementation with cod liver oil was also not associated with a reduced risk of any of the coprimary endpoints, including other acute respiratory infections.

“Daily supplementation with cod liver oil, a low-dose vitamin D, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosahexaenoic acid supplement, for 6 months during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic among Norwegian adults did not reduce the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, serious COVID-19, or other acute respiratory infections,” the authors report.
 

Key study limitations

In his editorial, Dr. Bergman underscores the limitations of two studies – also acknowledged by the authors – including the key confounding role of vaccines that emerged during the studies.

“The null findings of the studies should be interpreted in the context of a highly effective vaccine rolled out during both studies,” Dr. Bergman writes.

In the U.K. study, for instance, whereas only 1.2% of participants were vaccinated at baseline, the rate soared to 89.1% having received at least one dose by study end, potentially masking any effect of vitamin D, he says.

Additionally, for the Norway study, Dr. Bergman notes that cod liver oil also contains a substantial amount of vitamin A, which can be a potent immunomodulator.

“Excessive intake of vitamin A can cause adverse effects and may also interfere with vitamin D-mediated effects on the immune system,” he writes.

With two recent large meta-analyses showing benefits of vitamin D supplementation to be specifically among people who are vitamin D deficient, “a pragmatic approach for the clinician could be to focus on risk groups” for supplementation, Dr. Bergman writes.

“[These include] those who could be tested before supplementation, including people with dark skin, or skin that is rarely exposed to the sun, pregnant women, and elderly people with chronic diseases.”

The U.K. trial was supported by Barts Charity, Pharma Nord, the Fischer Family Foundation, DSM Nutritional Products, the Exilarch’s Foundation, the Karl R. Pfleger Foundation, the AIM Foundation, Synergy Biologics, Cytoplan, the Clinical Research Network of the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research, the HDR UK BREATHE Hub, the U.K. Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Thornton & Ross, Warburtons, Hyphens Pharma, and philanthropist Matthew Isaacs.

The CLOC trial was funded by Orkla Health, the manufacturer of the cod liver oil used in the trial. Dr. Bergman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among men who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, having low levels of testosterone may increase the risk of hospitalization from the disease – but hormone therapy appears to reduce the likelihood of severe COVID, researchers have found.

Low testosterone has long been linked to multiple chronic conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, as well as acute conditions, such as heart attack and stroke. A study published earlier in the pandemic suggested that suppressing the sex hormone might protect against COVID-19. The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, is among the first to suggest a link between low testosterone and the risk for severe COVID.

Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis evaluated data from 723 unvaccinated men who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of those, 116 had been diagnosed with hypogonadism, and 180 were receiving testosterone supplementation.

The study found that men whose testosterone levels were less than 200 ng/dL were 2.4 times more likely to experience a severe case of COVID-19 that required hospitalization than were those with normal levels of the hormone. The study accounted for the fact that participants with low testosterone were also more likely to have comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.

Paresh Dandona, MD, PhD, distinguished professor of medicine and endocrinology at the State University of New York at Buffalo, called the findings “very exciting” and “fundamental.”

“In the world of hypogonadism, this is the first to show that low testosterone makes you vulnerable” to COVID, added Dr. Dandona, who was not involved with the research.

Men who were receiving hormone replacement therapy were at lower risk of hospitalization, compared with those who were not receiving treatment, the study found.

“Testosterone therapy seemed to negate the harmful effects of COVID,” said Sandeep Dhindsa, MD, an endocrinologist at Saint Louis University and lead author of the study.

Approximately 50% more men have died from confirmed COVID-19 than women since the start of the pandemic, according to the Sex, Gender and COVID-19 Project. Previous findings suggesting that sex may be a risk factor for death from COVID prompted researchers to consider whether hormones may play a role in the increased risk among men and whether treatments that suppress androgen levels could cut hospitalizations, but researchers consistently found that androgen suppression was not effective.

“There are other reasons women might be doing better – they may have followed public health guidelines a lot better,” according to Abhinav Diwan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who helped conduct the new study. “It may be chromosomal and not necessarily just hormonal. The differences between men and women go beyond one factor.”

According to the researchers, the findings do not suggest that hormone therapy be used as a preventive measure against COVID.

“We don’t want patients to get excited and start to ask their doctors for testosterone,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

However, viewing low testosterone as a risk factor for COVID could be considered a shift in thinking for some clinicians, according to Dr. Dandana.

“All obese and all [men with] type 2 diabetes should be tested for testosterone, which is the practice in my clinic right now, even if they have no symptoms,” Dr. Dandana said. “Certainly, those with symptoms [of low testosterone] but no diagnosis, they should be tested, too.”

Participants in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in 2020, before vaccines were available. The researchers did not assess whether the rate of hospitalizations among participants with low testosterone would be different had they been vaccinated.

“Whatever benefits we saw with testosterone might be minor compared to getting the vaccine,” Dr. Dhindsa said.

Dr. Diwan agreed. “COVID hospitalization continues to be a problem, the strains are evolving, and new vaccines are coming in,” he said. “The bottom line is to get vaccinated.”

Dr. Dhindsa has received personal fees from Bayer and Acerus Pharmaceuticals and grants from Clarus Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Diwan has served as a consultant for the interpretation of echocardiograms for clinical trials for Clario (previously ERT) and has received nonfinancial support from Dewpoint Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Dandana has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The influenza vaccine is linked to a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke, with the reduced risk apparent at a population level even outside of flu season, in new findings that suggest the vaccine itself, and not just avoidance of the virus, may be beneficial.

“We postulate that influenza vaccination may have a protective effect against stroke that may be partly independent of influenza prevention,” study investigator Francisco J. de Abajo, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, said in an interview.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

“Although the study is observational and this finding can also be explained by unmeasured confounding factors, we feel that a direct biological effect of vaccine cannot be ruled out and this finding opens new avenues for investigation.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Not a spurious association’

While there is a well-established link between seasonal influenza and increased ischemic stroke risk, the role of flu vaccination in stroke prevention is unclear.

In the nested case-control study, researchers evaluated data from primary care practices in Spain between 2001 and 2015. They identified 14,322 patients with first-time ischemic stroke. Of these, 9,542 had noncardioembolic stroke and 4,780 had cardioembolic stroke.

Each case was matched with five controls from the population of age- and sex-matched controls without stroke (n = 71,610).

Those in the stroke group had a slightly higher rate of flu vaccination than controls, at 41.4% versus 40.5% (odds ratio, 1.05).

Adjusted analysis revealed those who received flu vaccination were less likely to experience ischemic stroke within 15-30 days of vaccination (OR, 0.79) and, to a lesser degree, over up to 150 days (OR, 0.92).

The reduced risk associated with the flu vaccine was observed with both types of ischemic stroke and appeared to offer stroke protection outside of flu season.

The reduced risk was also found in subgroup comparisons in men, women, those aged over and under 65 years, and those with intermediate and high vascular risk.

Importantly, a separate analysis of pneumococcal vaccination did not show a similar reduction in stroke risk (adjusted OR, 1.08).

“The lack of protection found with the pneumococcal vaccine actually reinforces the hypothesis that the protection of influenza vaccine is not a spurious association, as both vaccines might share the same biases and confounding factors,” Dr. de Abajo said.
 

Anti-inflammatory effect?

Influenza infection is known to induce a systemic inflammatory response that “can precipitate atheroma plaque rupture mediated by elevated concentrations of reactive proteins and cytokines,” the investigators noted, and so, avoiding infection could prevent those effects.

The results are consistent with other studies that have shown similar findings, including recent data from the INTERSTROKE trial. However, the reduced risk observed in the current study even in years without a flu epidemic expands on previous findings.

“This finding suggests that other mechanisms different from the prevention of influenza infection – e.g., a direct biological effect – could account for the risk reduction found,” the investigators wrote.

In terms of the nature of that effect, Dr. de Abajo noted that, “at this stage, we can only speculate.

“Having said that, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest influenza vaccination may release anti-inflammatory mediators that can stabilize the atheroma plaque. This is an interesting hypothesis that should be addressed in the near future,” he added.
 

‘More than just flu prevention’

In an accompanying editorial, Dixon Yang, MD, and Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, agree that the findings point to intriguing potential unexpected benefits of the vaccine.

“This case-control study ... importantly suggests the influenza vaccine is more than just about preventing the flu,” they wrote.

Dr. Elkind said in an interview that the mechanism could indeed involve an anti-inflammatory effect.

“There is some evidence that antibiotics also have anti-inflammatory properties that might reduce risk of stroke or the brain damage from a stroke,” he noted. “So, it is plausible that some of the effect of the vaccine on reducing risk of stroke may be through a reduction in inflammation.”

Dr. Elkind noted that the magnitude of the reduction observed with the vaccine, though not substantial, is important. “The magnitude of effect for any one individual may be modest, but it is in the ballpark of the effect of other commonly used approaches to stroke prevention, such as taking an aspirin a day, which reduces risk of stroke by about 20%. But because influenza is so common, the impact of even a small effect for an individual can have a large impact at the population level. So, the results are of public health significance.”

The study received support from the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Prince of Asturias University Hospital and the Institute of Health Carlos III in Madrid. Dr. Elkind has reported receiving ancillary funding but no personal compensation from Roche for a federally funded trial of stroke prevention.

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

The influenza vaccine is linked to a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke, with the reduced risk apparent at a population level even outside of flu season, in new findings that suggest the vaccine itself, and not just avoidance of the virus, may be beneficial.

“We postulate that influenza vaccination may have a protective effect against stroke that may be partly independent of influenza prevention,” study investigator Francisco J. de Abajo, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, said in an interview.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

“Although the study is observational and this finding can also be explained by unmeasured confounding factors, we feel that a direct biological effect of vaccine cannot be ruled out and this finding opens new avenues for investigation.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Not a spurious association’

While there is a well-established link between seasonal influenza and increased ischemic stroke risk, the role of flu vaccination in stroke prevention is unclear.

In the nested case-control study, researchers evaluated data from primary care practices in Spain between 2001 and 2015. They identified 14,322 patients with first-time ischemic stroke. Of these, 9,542 had noncardioembolic stroke and 4,780 had cardioembolic stroke.

Each case was matched with five controls from the population of age- and sex-matched controls without stroke (n = 71,610).

Those in the stroke group had a slightly higher rate of flu vaccination than controls, at 41.4% versus 40.5% (odds ratio, 1.05).

Adjusted analysis revealed those who received flu vaccination were less likely to experience ischemic stroke within 15-30 days of vaccination (OR, 0.79) and, to a lesser degree, over up to 150 days (OR, 0.92).

The reduced risk associated with the flu vaccine was observed with both types of ischemic stroke and appeared to offer stroke protection outside of flu season.

The reduced risk was also found in subgroup comparisons in men, women, those aged over and under 65 years, and those with intermediate and high vascular risk.

Importantly, a separate analysis of pneumococcal vaccination did not show a similar reduction in stroke risk (adjusted OR, 1.08).

“The lack of protection found with the pneumococcal vaccine actually reinforces the hypothesis that the protection of influenza vaccine is not a spurious association, as both vaccines might share the same biases and confounding factors,” Dr. de Abajo said.
 

Anti-inflammatory effect?

Influenza infection is known to induce a systemic inflammatory response that “can precipitate atheroma plaque rupture mediated by elevated concentrations of reactive proteins and cytokines,” the investigators noted, and so, avoiding infection could prevent those effects.

The results are consistent with other studies that have shown similar findings, including recent data from the INTERSTROKE trial. However, the reduced risk observed in the current study even in years without a flu epidemic expands on previous findings.

“This finding suggests that other mechanisms different from the prevention of influenza infection – e.g., a direct biological effect – could account for the risk reduction found,” the investigators wrote.

In terms of the nature of that effect, Dr. de Abajo noted that, “at this stage, we can only speculate.

“Having said that, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest influenza vaccination may release anti-inflammatory mediators that can stabilize the atheroma plaque. This is an interesting hypothesis that should be addressed in the near future,” he added.
 

‘More than just flu prevention’

In an accompanying editorial, Dixon Yang, MD, and Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, agree that the findings point to intriguing potential unexpected benefits of the vaccine.

“This case-control study ... importantly suggests the influenza vaccine is more than just about preventing the flu,” they wrote.

Dr. Elkind said in an interview that the mechanism could indeed involve an anti-inflammatory effect.

“There is some evidence that antibiotics also have anti-inflammatory properties that might reduce risk of stroke or the brain damage from a stroke,” he noted. “So, it is plausible that some of the effect of the vaccine on reducing risk of stroke may be through a reduction in inflammation.”

Dr. Elkind noted that the magnitude of the reduction observed with the vaccine, though not substantial, is important. “The magnitude of effect for any one individual may be modest, but it is in the ballpark of the effect of other commonly used approaches to stroke prevention, such as taking an aspirin a day, which reduces risk of stroke by about 20%. But because influenza is so common, the impact of even a small effect for an individual can have a large impact at the population level. So, the results are of public health significance.”

The study received support from the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Prince of Asturias University Hospital and the Institute of Health Carlos III in Madrid. Dr. Elkind has reported receiving ancillary funding but no personal compensation from Roche for a federally funded trial of stroke prevention.

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

The influenza vaccine is linked to a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke, with the reduced risk apparent at a population level even outside of flu season, in new findings that suggest the vaccine itself, and not just avoidance of the virus, may be beneficial.

“We postulate that influenza vaccination may have a protective effect against stroke that may be partly independent of influenza prevention,” study investigator Francisco J. de Abajo, MD, PhD, MPH, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, said in an interview.

Jovanmandic/Thinkstock

“Although the study is observational and this finding can also be explained by unmeasured confounding factors, we feel that a direct biological effect of vaccine cannot be ruled out and this finding opens new avenues for investigation.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Not a spurious association’

While there is a well-established link between seasonal influenza and increased ischemic stroke risk, the role of flu vaccination in stroke prevention is unclear.

In the nested case-control study, researchers evaluated data from primary care practices in Spain between 2001 and 2015. They identified 14,322 patients with first-time ischemic stroke. Of these, 9,542 had noncardioembolic stroke and 4,780 had cardioembolic stroke.

Each case was matched with five controls from the population of age- and sex-matched controls without stroke (n = 71,610).

Those in the stroke group had a slightly higher rate of flu vaccination than controls, at 41.4% versus 40.5% (odds ratio, 1.05).

Adjusted analysis revealed those who received flu vaccination were less likely to experience ischemic stroke within 15-30 days of vaccination (OR, 0.79) and, to a lesser degree, over up to 150 days (OR, 0.92).

The reduced risk associated with the flu vaccine was observed with both types of ischemic stroke and appeared to offer stroke protection outside of flu season.

The reduced risk was also found in subgroup comparisons in men, women, those aged over and under 65 years, and those with intermediate and high vascular risk.

Importantly, a separate analysis of pneumococcal vaccination did not show a similar reduction in stroke risk (adjusted OR, 1.08).

“The lack of protection found with the pneumococcal vaccine actually reinforces the hypothesis that the protection of influenza vaccine is not a spurious association, as both vaccines might share the same biases and confounding factors,” Dr. de Abajo said.
 

Anti-inflammatory effect?

Influenza infection is known to induce a systemic inflammatory response that “can precipitate atheroma plaque rupture mediated by elevated concentrations of reactive proteins and cytokines,” the investigators noted, and so, avoiding infection could prevent those effects.

The results are consistent with other studies that have shown similar findings, including recent data from the INTERSTROKE trial. However, the reduced risk observed in the current study even in years without a flu epidemic expands on previous findings.

“This finding suggests that other mechanisms different from the prevention of influenza infection – e.g., a direct biological effect – could account for the risk reduction found,” the investigators wrote.

In terms of the nature of that effect, Dr. de Abajo noted that, “at this stage, we can only speculate.

“Having said that, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest influenza vaccination may release anti-inflammatory mediators that can stabilize the atheroma plaque. This is an interesting hypothesis that should be addressed in the near future,” he added.
 

‘More than just flu prevention’

In an accompanying editorial, Dixon Yang, MD, and Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, agree that the findings point to intriguing potential unexpected benefits of the vaccine.

“This case-control study ... importantly suggests the influenza vaccine is more than just about preventing the flu,” they wrote.

Dr. Elkind said in an interview that the mechanism could indeed involve an anti-inflammatory effect.

“There is some evidence that antibiotics also have anti-inflammatory properties that might reduce risk of stroke or the brain damage from a stroke,” he noted. “So, it is plausible that some of the effect of the vaccine on reducing risk of stroke may be through a reduction in inflammation.”

Dr. Elkind noted that the magnitude of the reduction observed with the vaccine, though not substantial, is important. “The magnitude of effect for any one individual may be modest, but it is in the ballpark of the effect of other commonly used approaches to stroke prevention, such as taking an aspirin a day, which reduces risk of stroke by about 20%. But because influenza is so common, the impact of even a small effect for an individual can have a large impact at the population level. So, the results are of public health significance.”

The study received support from the Biomedical Research Foundation of the Prince of Asturias University Hospital and the Institute of Health Carlos III in Madrid. Dr. Elkind has reported receiving ancillary funding but no personal compensation from Roche for a federally funded trial of stroke prevention.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Almost half the people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 last spring had been fully vaccinated and received a third dose or booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.

Unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID than those who were vaccinated, the CDC said.

The CDC report considered hospitalization numbers from March 20 to May 31, when the omicron subvariant BA.2 was the dominant strain. Researchers found 39.1% of patients had received a primary vaccination series and at least one booster or additional dose; 5% were fully vaccinated with two boosters.

“Adults should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including booster doses,” the CDC said. “Multiple nonpharmaceutical and medical prevention measures should be used to protect persons at high risk for severe SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status.”

Older adults and people with underlying medical conditions who become infected with the coronavirus are more likely to be hospitalized.

The study also found that hospitalization rates among people over 65 increased threefold over the study period. Rates among people under 65 rose 1.7 times.

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

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Let’s pretend for a moment that you receive a call from one of your college roommates who thanks to his family connections has become a venture capitalist in California. His group is considering investing in a start-up that is developing a handheld instrument that it claims will use artificial intelligence to diagnose ear infections far more accurately than the human eye. He wonders if you would like to help him evaluate the company’s proposal and offers you a small percentage of the profits for your efforts should they choose to invest.

Your former roommate has done enough research on his own to understand that otitis media makes up a large chunk of a pediatrician’s workload and that making an accurate diagnosis can often be difficult in a struggling child. He describes his own experience watching a frustrated pediatrician attempting to remove wax from his child’s ear and eventually prescribing antibiotics “to be safe.”

You agree and review the prospectus, which includes a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. What you discover is that the investigators used more than 600 high-resolution images of tympanic membranes taken “during operative myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement” and the findings at tympanocentesis to train a neural network.

Once trained, the model they developed could differentiate with 95% accuracy between an image of a tympanic membrane that covered a normal middle ear from one that merely contained fluid and from one that contained infected fluid. When these same images were shown to 39 clinicians, more than half of which were pediatricians and included both faculty-level staff and trainees, the average diagnostic accuracy was 65%.

The prospectus includes prediction that this technology could easily be developed into a handheld instrument similar to a traditional otoscope, which could then be linked to the operator’s smartphone, giving the clinician an instant treat or no-treat answer.

Now, remember you have nothing to lose except maybe a friendship. How would you advise your old college roommate?

My advice to your college buddy would be one of caution! Yes, there is a potential big upside because there is a real need for a device that could provide a diagnostic accuracy that this AI model promises. While I suspect that AI will always be more accurate in diagnosis using static images, I bet that most people, clinicians and nonclinicians, could improve their accuracy by linking photos with diagnoses with an hour of practice.

However, evaluating a high-resolution photograph taken through an operative scope inserted into the cerumenless ear canal of a sedated, afrebrile child is several orders of magnitude less difficult than the real-world environment in which the diagnosis of otitis media is usually made.

If the venture capitalists were still interested in getting into the otitis media marketplace, you might suggest they look into companies that have already developed image capture otoscopes. At this point I could only find one on the Internet that was portable and it certainly isn’t small-child friendly. Once we have a tool that can capture images in real-world situations, the next step is to train AI systems to interpret them using the approach these researchers have developed. I bet it can be done. It will be only a matter of time ... and money.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].