MDedge Rheumatology

Key clinical point: A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based scoring method was sensitive to changes in clinical outcomes of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) caused by abatacept, validating the responsiveness of the OMERACT PsA MRI Scoring System.

Major finding: Until day 169, patients receiving 30 mg/kg abatacept with a switch over to 10 mg/kg and those receiving 10 mg/kg abatacept reported significant reduction in MRI-detected synovitis (−0.97; P = .04) and tenosynovitis (−1.65; P = .01) vs. placebo, with patients switching from placebo to 10 mg/kg abatacept at day 169 showing significant improvements in total inflammation, synovitis, and tenosynovitis (P < .05) up to day 365.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2b study including 123 patients with active PsA and an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs randomly assigned to receive abatacept or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. The authors declared serving on speakers’ bureaus and as consultants or receiving grants/research support from several sources. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb.

Source: Østergaard M et al. Implementation of the OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System in a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Feb 8). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac073

Key clinical point: A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based scoring method was sensitive to changes in clinical outcomes of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) caused by abatacept, validating the responsiveness of the OMERACT PsA MRI Scoring System.

Major finding: Until day 169, patients receiving 30 mg/kg abatacept with a switch over to 10 mg/kg and those receiving 10 mg/kg abatacept reported significant reduction in MRI-detected synovitis (−0.97; P = .04) and tenosynovitis (−1.65; P = .01) vs. placebo, with patients switching from placebo to 10 mg/kg abatacept at day 169 showing significant improvements in total inflammation, synovitis, and tenosynovitis (P < .05) up to day 365.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2b study including 123 patients with active PsA and an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs randomly assigned to receive abatacept or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. The authors declared serving on speakers’ bureaus and as consultants or receiving grants/research support from several sources. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb.

Source: Østergaard M et al. Implementation of the OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System in a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Feb 8). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac073

Key clinical point: A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based scoring method was sensitive to changes in clinical outcomes of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) caused by abatacept, validating the responsiveness of the OMERACT PsA MRI Scoring System.

Major finding: Until day 169, patients receiving 30 mg/kg abatacept with a switch over to 10 mg/kg and those receiving 10 mg/kg abatacept reported significant reduction in MRI-detected synovitis (−0.97; P = .04) and tenosynovitis (−1.65; P = .01) vs. placebo, with patients switching from placebo to 10 mg/kg abatacept at day 169 showing significant improvements in total inflammation, synovitis, and tenosynovitis (P < .05) up to day 365.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2b study including 123 patients with active PsA and an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs randomly assigned to receive abatacept or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. The authors declared serving on speakers’ bureaus and as consultants or receiving grants/research support from several sources. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb.

Source: Østergaard M et al. Implementation of the OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System in a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Feb 8). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac073

Key clinical point: Humoral response to BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was reduced in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received immunomodulatory treatment with antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, methotrexate, or interleukin 17 inhibitor compared with those without PsA.

Major finding: The median anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody level after 3 weeks of receiving the second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was significantly higher in individuals without vs. with PsA (1,562.00 vs. 928.00 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL; P ≤ .001). The levels were, however, similar across anti-TNF therapy, secukinumab, or methotrexate treatment groups (P = .73).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 110 patients with PsA in clinical remission who received immunomodulatory treatment and were matched with 96 healthy healthcare workers, all of whom had previously received two shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Benucci M et al. Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: Can Therapy Affect the Immunological Response? Front Med. 2022;9:811829 (Feb 28). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.811829

Key clinical point: Humoral response to BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was reduced in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received immunomodulatory treatment with antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, methotrexate, or interleukin 17 inhibitor compared with those without PsA.

Major finding: The median anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody level after 3 weeks of receiving the second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was significantly higher in individuals without vs. with PsA (1,562.00 vs. 928.00 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL; P ≤ .001). The levels were, however, similar across anti-TNF therapy, secukinumab, or methotrexate treatment groups (P = .73).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 110 patients with PsA in clinical remission who received immunomodulatory treatment and were matched with 96 healthy healthcare workers, all of whom had previously received two shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Benucci M et al. Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: Can Therapy Affect the Immunological Response? Front Med. 2022;9:811829 (Feb 28). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.811829

Key clinical point: Humoral response to BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was reduced in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received immunomodulatory treatment with antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, methotrexate, or interleukin 17 inhibitor compared with those without PsA.

Major finding: The median anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody level after 3 weeks of receiving the second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was significantly higher in individuals without vs. with PsA (1,562.00 vs. 928.00 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL; P ≤ .001). The levels were, however, similar across anti-TNF therapy, secukinumab, or methotrexate treatment groups (P = .73).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 110 patients with PsA in clinical remission who received immunomodulatory treatment and were matched with 96 healthy healthcare workers, all of whom had previously received two shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Benucci M et al. Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: Can Therapy Affect the Immunological Response? Front Med. 2022;9:811829 (Feb 28). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.811829

Key clinical point: Ustekinumab and a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) showed comparable efficacy, safety, and drug persistence after 1 year of treatment in real-world patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: After 1 year of treatment, ustekinumab vs. TNFi showed similar persistence (hazard ratio for stopping/switching treatment 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.13) and a similar proportion of patients achieving clinical low disease activity  on the Disease Activity Index for PsA  (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.57-1.10) and remission (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49-1.07), along with a similar safety profile.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year analysis of the prospective, observational PsABio study including 893 patients with PsA who were prescribed first-line to third-line ustekinumab or TNFis.

Disclosures: PsABio study was sponsored by Janssen. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, consulting fees, research support, nonfinancial support, and honoraria from several sources, including Janssen. Three authors declared being employees or shareholders of Janssen or Johnson and Johnson, Janssen’s corporate parent.

Source: Gossec L et al. Persistence and effectiveness of the IL-12/23 pathway inhibitor ustekinumab or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 1-year results from the real-world PsABio Study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221640

Key clinical point: Ustekinumab and a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) showed comparable efficacy, safety, and drug persistence after 1 year of treatment in real-world patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: After 1 year of treatment, ustekinumab vs. TNFi showed similar persistence (hazard ratio for stopping/switching treatment 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.13) and a similar proportion of patients achieving clinical low disease activity  on the Disease Activity Index for PsA  (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.57-1.10) and remission (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49-1.07), along with a similar safety profile.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year analysis of the prospective, observational PsABio study including 893 patients with PsA who were prescribed first-line to third-line ustekinumab or TNFis.

Disclosures: PsABio study was sponsored by Janssen. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, consulting fees, research support, nonfinancial support, and honoraria from several sources, including Janssen. Three authors declared being employees or shareholders of Janssen or Johnson and Johnson, Janssen’s corporate parent.

Source: Gossec L et al. Persistence and effectiveness of the IL-12/23 pathway inhibitor ustekinumab or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 1-year results from the real-world PsABio Study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221640

Key clinical point: Ustekinumab and a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) showed comparable efficacy, safety, and drug persistence after 1 year of treatment in real-world patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: After 1 year of treatment, ustekinumab vs. TNFi showed similar persistence (hazard ratio for stopping/switching treatment 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.13) and a similar proportion of patients achieving clinical low disease activity  on the Disease Activity Index for PsA  (odds ratio [OR] 0.80; 95% CI 0.57-1.10) and remission (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.49-1.07), along with a similar safety profile.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year analysis of the prospective, observational PsABio study including 893 patients with PsA who were prescribed first-line to third-line ustekinumab or TNFis.

Disclosures: PsABio study was sponsored by Janssen. The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, consulting fees, research support, nonfinancial support, and honoraria from several sources, including Janssen. Three authors declared being employees or shareholders of Janssen or Johnson and Johnson, Janssen’s corporate parent.

Source: Gossec L et al. Persistence and effectiveness of the IL-12/23 pathway inhibitor ustekinumab or tumour necrosis factor inhibitor treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 1-year results from the real-world PsABio Study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221640

Key clinical point: Methotrexate+leflunomide therapy was superior to methotrexate monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however methotrexate+leflunomide therapy was less well tolerated than methotrexate monotherapy.

Major finding: At week 16, PsA disease activity score improved significantly in the methotrexate+leflunomide vs. methotrexate monotherapy group (3.1 vs. 3.7; P = .025). Incidence of mild adverse events, such as nausea/vomiting (44% vs. 28%) and altered bowel habits (26% vs. 8%), was higher with methotrexate+leflunomide vs. methotrexate+placebo.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 COMPLETE-PsA trial including 78 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive 2 tablets/day of 10 mg leflunomide or placebo once/day, both with 25 mg/week methotrexate.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, and the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The authors declared serving as speakers or consultants or receiving payments, honoraria, consulting and speaker fees, and support for attending meetings from several sources.

Source: Mulder MLM et al. Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 28). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00028-5

Key clinical point: Methotrexate+leflunomide therapy was superior to methotrexate monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however methotrexate+leflunomide therapy was less well tolerated than methotrexate monotherapy.

Major finding: At week 16, PsA disease activity score improved significantly in the methotrexate+leflunomide vs. methotrexate monotherapy group (3.1 vs. 3.7; P = .025). Incidence of mild adverse events, such as nausea/vomiting (44% vs. 28%) and altered bowel habits (26% vs. 8%), was higher with methotrexate+leflunomide vs. methotrexate+placebo.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 COMPLETE-PsA trial including 78 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive 2 tablets/day of 10 mg leflunomide or placebo once/day, both with 25 mg/week methotrexate.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, and the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The authors declared serving as speakers or consultants or receiving payments, honoraria, consulting and speaker fees, and support for attending meetings from several sources.

Source: Mulder MLM et al. Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 28). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00028-5

Key clinical point: Methotrexate+leflunomide therapy was superior to methotrexate monotherapy at improving disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however methotrexate+leflunomide therapy was less well tolerated than methotrexate monotherapy.

Major finding: At week 16, PsA disease activity score improved significantly in the methotrexate+leflunomide vs. methotrexate monotherapy group (3.1 vs. 3.7; P = .025). Incidence of mild adverse events, such as nausea/vomiting (44% vs. 28%) and altered bowel habits (26% vs. 8%), was higher with methotrexate+leflunomide vs. methotrexate+placebo.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 COMPLETE-PsA trial including 78 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive 2 tablets/day of 10 mg leflunomide or placebo once/day, both with 25 mg/week methotrexate.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, and the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The authors declared serving as speakers or consultants or receiving payments, honoraria, consulting and speaker fees, and support for attending meetings from several sources.

Source: Mulder MLM et al. Comparing methotrexate monotherapy with methotrexate plus leflunomide combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 28). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00028-5

Key clinical point: Findings from the CONTROL trial support adding adalimumab over escalating methotrexate in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who respond inadequately to the initial methotrexate dose.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved minimal disease activity after adding adalimumab to methotrexate vs. escalating methotrexate dose (41% vs. 13%; P < .0001), with the efficacy being maintained through 32 weeks by 80% of adalimumab responders despite methotrexate withdrawal at 16 weeks. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 4 CONTROL trial including 245 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to methotrexate. They were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week adalimumab+methotrexate or have a methotrexate dose escalated up to 25 mg/week for 16 weeks; responders either maintained or modified their current therapy and nonresponders had their therapy escalated until 32 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. Four authors declared being employees or stockholders of AbbVie and other authors reported ties with various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Coates LC et al. Comparison between adalimumab introduction and methotrexate dose escalation in patients with inadequately controlled psoriatic arthritis (CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, two-part, phase 4 study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 25). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00008-X

Key clinical point: Findings from the CONTROL trial support adding adalimumab over escalating methotrexate in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who respond inadequately to the initial methotrexate dose.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved minimal disease activity after adding adalimumab to methotrexate vs. escalating methotrexate dose (41% vs. 13%; P < .0001), with the efficacy being maintained through 32 weeks by 80% of adalimumab responders despite methotrexate withdrawal at 16 weeks. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 4 CONTROL trial including 245 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to methotrexate. They were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week adalimumab+methotrexate or have a methotrexate dose escalated up to 25 mg/week for 16 weeks; responders either maintained or modified their current therapy and nonresponders had their therapy escalated until 32 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. Four authors declared being employees or stockholders of AbbVie and other authors reported ties with various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Coates LC et al. Comparison between adalimumab introduction and methotrexate dose escalation in patients with inadequately controlled psoriatic arthritis (CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, two-part, phase 4 study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 25). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00008-X

Key clinical point: Findings from the CONTROL trial support adding adalimumab over escalating methotrexate in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who respond inadequately to the initial methotrexate dose.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved minimal disease activity after adding adalimumab to methotrexate vs. escalating methotrexate dose (41% vs. 13%; P < .0001), with the efficacy being maintained through 32 weeks by 80% of adalimumab responders despite methotrexate withdrawal at 16 weeks. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 4 CONTROL trial including 245 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to methotrexate. They were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week adalimumab+methotrexate or have a methotrexate dose escalated up to 25 mg/week for 16 weeks; responders either maintained or modified their current therapy and nonresponders had their therapy escalated until 32 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. Four authors declared being employees or stockholders of AbbVie and other authors reported ties with various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Coates LC et al. Comparison between adalimumab introduction and methotrexate dose escalation in patients with inadequately controlled psoriatic arthritis (CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, two-part, phase 4 study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 25). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00008-X

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) whose condition doesn’t respond adequately to methotrexate, addition of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab increased the likelihood of achieving minimum disease activity (MDA), compared with escalation of MTX dose, according to results from a phase 4, open-label study.

The new study is one of only a few to compare treatment protocols in a field that has seen new therapeutic options become available in recent years. That lack of evidence can leave patients and physicians uncertain about the next step if the initial results of treatment are disappointing.

“There are some gaps in our database and our understanding of psoriatic arthritis, compared to rheumatoid arthritis, where we have had many more studies over the years,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

The trial provides one answer, at least. “There was a clear-cut signal that it made more sense to add adalimumab at that early juncture where a person is not quite doing well enough on methotrexate to satisfy our goal of getting the patient to low disease activity. It gives us as clinicians some ammunition to speak to our insurance formulary people on this side of the Atlantic, or [for] people in the U.K. to go to their local regulatory board that approves medicines and be able to show them some actual practically derived evidence about this very common question that comes up in practice,” senior and corresponding author Philip Mease, MD, said in an interview. The study was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“When a clinician and patient are making the decision to move on from methotrexate monotherapy, either because of lack of efficacy or safety issues, tolerability issues, it makes most sense to add on a biologic medication such as a TNF inhibitor at that juncture, rather than intensifying methotrexate therapy,” said Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Physicians may be tempted to bump up the dose for patients who can tolerate MTX and who may be showing some improvement, but the new study should prompt a different strategy if MDA isn’t achieved, according to Oliver FitzGerald, MD, a professor at the Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research at University College Dublin, who was asked to comment on the study. “This study clearly shows that the early addition of adalimumab is the better choice, and it would change practice. That being said, there are clearly some patients who do respond sufficiently to increasing methotrexate, and it would be useful to be able to predict which patients might do that.” He added that the study focused on adalimumab and that the results might not apply to other biologics.

The study should encourage use of a quantitative treat-to-target measure like MDA, which is a composite measure of patient perspectives, Dr. Mease said. The American College of Rheumatology and National Psoriasis Foundation and Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis have recommended the use of MDA as a treat-to-target measure for PsA. The ACR and NPF recommend TNF inhibitors as first-line treatment, and GRAPPA includes it as a first-line option, whereas the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends MTX only in the first line.

The study also suggests that there is value to using adalimumab on a weekly basis if an every-other-week schedule doesn’t produce the desired results. This strategy hasn’t been examined in PsA or even RA, according to Dr. Kavanaugh, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “It did look like raising the dose might be an option for patients who are on every other week and are not doing quite as well as we would have hoped.”

The CONTROL study was a phase 4, two-part, open-label study. It included 245 patients in 14 countries who did not have MDA with MTX. In the first part of the study, patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 15 mg MTX along with 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or escalation of MTX dose to 20-25 mg/week. MTX could be administered orally or intravenously. After 16 weeks (part 1), for patients who achieved MDA, current therapy was maintained or modified; for patients who did not achieve MDA, therapy was escalated over the following 16 weeks by giving adalimumab every week in the combination group or by adding adalimumab every other week in the MTX escalation arm.

Overall, 95% of the MTX plus adalimumab group completed part 1, as did 90% of the MTX escalation group. A total of 41% of the adalimumab group achieved MDA at 16 weeks versus 13% of the MTX group (P < .0001). The result held after accounting for sex and the interaction between sex and treatment (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9).

Among patients who achieved MDA at 16 weeks, 80% in the adalimumab group continued to have MDA at 32 weeks even after MTX had been withdrawn. Of those in the MTX escalation group, 67% continued to have MDA at 32 weeks with continued escalation of MTX.

Of the patients in the MTX escalation group who did not respond, 55% reached MDA following introduction of adalimumab every other week. Of those who did not respond to adalimumab, 30% reached MDA after switching to weekly adalimumab doses.

The study was open label, and patients who received adalimumab may have expected some improvement; that could have skewed the findings, Dr. Kavanaugh said. “I think that’s an important consideration as we interpret the data. The people who got the MTX arm probably had less of an expectation that they were going to do much better than those who switched to the adalimumab, as did the doctors taking care of them.”

The CONTROL study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulted for, or received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. FitzGerald has received grant support and honoraria from AbbVie. Dr. Kavanaugh has received research support from or consulted for AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

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

For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) whose condition doesn’t respond adequately to methotrexate, addition of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab increased the likelihood of achieving minimum disease activity (MDA), compared with escalation of MTX dose, according to results from a phase 4, open-label study.

The new study is one of only a few to compare treatment protocols in a field that has seen new therapeutic options become available in recent years. That lack of evidence can leave patients and physicians uncertain about the next step if the initial results of treatment are disappointing.

“There are some gaps in our database and our understanding of psoriatic arthritis, compared to rheumatoid arthritis, where we have had many more studies over the years,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

The trial provides one answer, at least. “There was a clear-cut signal that it made more sense to add adalimumab at that early juncture where a person is not quite doing well enough on methotrexate to satisfy our goal of getting the patient to low disease activity. It gives us as clinicians some ammunition to speak to our insurance formulary people on this side of the Atlantic, or [for] people in the U.K. to go to their local regulatory board that approves medicines and be able to show them some actual practically derived evidence about this very common question that comes up in practice,” senior and corresponding author Philip Mease, MD, said in an interview. The study was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“When a clinician and patient are making the decision to move on from methotrexate monotherapy, either because of lack of efficacy or safety issues, tolerability issues, it makes most sense to add on a biologic medication such as a TNF inhibitor at that juncture, rather than intensifying methotrexate therapy,” said Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Physicians may be tempted to bump up the dose for patients who can tolerate MTX and who may be showing some improvement, but the new study should prompt a different strategy if MDA isn’t achieved, according to Oliver FitzGerald, MD, a professor at the Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research at University College Dublin, who was asked to comment on the study. “This study clearly shows that the early addition of adalimumab is the better choice, and it would change practice. That being said, there are clearly some patients who do respond sufficiently to increasing methotrexate, and it would be useful to be able to predict which patients might do that.” He added that the study focused on adalimumab and that the results might not apply to other biologics.

The study should encourage use of a quantitative treat-to-target measure like MDA, which is a composite measure of patient perspectives, Dr. Mease said. The American College of Rheumatology and National Psoriasis Foundation and Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis have recommended the use of MDA as a treat-to-target measure for PsA. The ACR and NPF recommend TNF inhibitors as first-line treatment, and GRAPPA includes it as a first-line option, whereas the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends MTX only in the first line.

The study also suggests that there is value to using adalimumab on a weekly basis if an every-other-week schedule doesn’t produce the desired results. This strategy hasn’t been examined in PsA or even RA, according to Dr. Kavanaugh, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “It did look like raising the dose might be an option for patients who are on every other week and are not doing quite as well as we would have hoped.”

The CONTROL study was a phase 4, two-part, open-label study. It included 245 patients in 14 countries who did not have MDA with MTX. In the first part of the study, patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 15 mg MTX along with 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or escalation of MTX dose to 20-25 mg/week. MTX could be administered orally or intravenously. After 16 weeks (part 1), for patients who achieved MDA, current therapy was maintained or modified; for patients who did not achieve MDA, therapy was escalated over the following 16 weeks by giving adalimumab every week in the combination group or by adding adalimumab every other week in the MTX escalation arm.

Overall, 95% of the MTX plus adalimumab group completed part 1, as did 90% of the MTX escalation group. A total of 41% of the adalimumab group achieved MDA at 16 weeks versus 13% of the MTX group (P < .0001). The result held after accounting for sex and the interaction between sex and treatment (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9).

Among patients who achieved MDA at 16 weeks, 80% in the adalimumab group continued to have MDA at 32 weeks even after MTX had been withdrawn. Of those in the MTX escalation group, 67% continued to have MDA at 32 weeks with continued escalation of MTX.

Of the patients in the MTX escalation group who did not respond, 55% reached MDA following introduction of adalimumab every other week. Of those who did not respond to adalimumab, 30% reached MDA after switching to weekly adalimumab doses.

The study was open label, and patients who received adalimumab may have expected some improvement; that could have skewed the findings, Dr. Kavanaugh said. “I think that’s an important consideration as we interpret the data. The people who got the MTX arm probably had less of an expectation that they were going to do much better than those who switched to the adalimumab, as did the doctors taking care of them.”

The CONTROL study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulted for, or received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. FitzGerald has received grant support and honoraria from AbbVie. Dr. Kavanaugh has received research support from or consulted for AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

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

For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) whose condition doesn’t respond adequately to methotrexate, addition of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab increased the likelihood of achieving minimum disease activity (MDA), compared with escalation of MTX dose, according to results from a phase 4, open-label study.

The new study is one of only a few to compare treatment protocols in a field that has seen new therapeutic options become available in recent years. That lack of evidence can leave patients and physicians uncertain about the next step if the initial results of treatment are disappointing.

“There are some gaps in our database and our understanding of psoriatic arthritis, compared to rheumatoid arthritis, where we have had many more studies over the years,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

The trial provides one answer, at least. “There was a clear-cut signal that it made more sense to add adalimumab at that early juncture where a person is not quite doing well enough on methotrexate to satisfy our goal of getting the patient to low disease activity. It gives us as clinicians some ammunition to speak to our insurance formulary people on this side of the Atlantic, or [for] people in the U.K. to go to their local regulatory board that approves medicines and be able to show them some actual practically derived evidence about this very common question that comes up in practice,” senior and corresponding author Philip Mease, MD, said in an interview. The study was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“When a clinician and patient are making the decision to move on from methotrexate monotherapy, either because of lack of efficacy or safety issues, tolerability issues, it makes most sense to add on a biologic medication such as a TNF inhibitor at that juncture, rather than intensifying methotrexate therapy,” said Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Physicians may be tempted to bump up the dose for patients who can tolerate MTX and who may be showing some improvement, but the new study should prompt a different strategy if MDA isn’t achieved, according to Oliver FitzGerald, MD, a professor at the Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research at University College Dublin, who was asked to comment on the study. “This study clearly shows that the early addition of adalimumab is the better choice, and it would change practice. That being said, there are clearly some patients who do respond sufficiently to increasing methotrexate, and it would be useful to be able to predict which patients might do that.” He added that the study focused on adalimumab and that the results might not apply to other biologics.

The study should encourage use of a quantitative treat-to-target measure like MDA, which is a composite measure of patient perspectives, Dr. Mease said. The American College of Rheumatology and National Psoriasis Foundation and Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis have recommended the use of MDA as a treat-to-target measure for PsA. The ACR and NPF recommend TNF inhibitors as first-line treatment, and GRAPPA includes it as a first-line option, whereas the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends MTX only in the first line.

The study also suggests that there is value to using adalimumab on a weekly basis if an every-other-week schedule doesn’t produce the desired results. This strategy hasn’t been examined in PsA or even RA, according to Dr. Kavanaugh, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “It did look like raising the dose might be an option for patients who are on every other week and are not doing quite as well as we would have hoped.”

The CONTROL study was a phase 4, two-part, open-label study. It included 245 patients in 14 countries who did not have MDA with MTX. In the first part of the study, patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 15 mg MTX along with 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or escalation of MTX dose to 20-25 mg/week. MTX could be administered orally or intravenously. After 16 weeks (part 1), for patients who achieved MDA, current therapy was maintained or modified; for patients who did not achieve MDA, therapy was escalated over the following 16 weeks by giving adalimumab every week in the combination group or by adding adalimumab every other week in the MTX escalation arm.

Overall, 95% of the MTX plus adalimumab group completed part 1, as did 90% of the MTX escalation group. A total of 41% of the adalimumab group achieved MDA at 16 weeks versus 13% of the MTX group (P < .0001). The result held after accounting for sex and the interaction between sex and treatment (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9).

Among patients who achieved MDA at 16 weeks, 80% in the adalimumab group continued to have MDA at 32 weeks even after MTX had been withdrawn. Of those in the MTX escalation group, 67% continued to have MDA at 32 weeks with continued escalation of MTX.

Of the patients in the MTX escalation group who did not respond, 55% reached MDA following introduction of adalimumab every other week. Of those who did not respond to adalimumab, 30% reached MDA after switching to weekly adalimumab doses.

The study was open label, and patients who received adalimumab may have expected some improvement; that could have skewed the findings, Dr. Kavanaugh said. “I think that’s an important consideration as we interpret the data. The people who got the MTX arm probably had less of an expectation that they were going to do much better than those who switched to the adalimumab, as did the doctors taking care of them.”

The CONTROL study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulted for, or received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. FitzGerald has received grant support and honoraria from AbbVie. Dr. Kavanaugh has received research support from or consulted for AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

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