MDedge Infectious Disease

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

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

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

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

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

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

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

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

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

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulevirtide (Hepcludex) monotherapy significantly reduces the load of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) and is safe in difficult-to-treat patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension, according to the results of an ongoing 1-year study.

In presenting a poster with these findings at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, lead author Elisabetta Degasperi, MD, from the Grand Hospital Maggiore Policlinico in Milan, said that they were important “because they confirm the safety of this drug in real life.”

Dr. Degasperi and colleagues showed that bulevirtide leads to a significant viral response in 78% of patients by week 48, which was measured using the outcome of greater than 2 log decline in HDV RNA from baseline.

Dr. Degasperi added that the research still needed to assess the longer-term benefits, but “so far the 1-year results clearly show an initial benefit that is not only a good viral response but also one of disease control and a slight improvement in liver function.”
 

Addressing an immense, unmet therapeutic need

HDV requires the presence of hepatitis B virus to replicate. Bulevirtide blocks the entry of HDV and hepatitis B virus into hepatocytes.

In July 2020, it was conditionally approved in the European Economic Area for use to treat chronic HDV infection in adults with compensated liver disease upon confirmation of HDV RNA in the blood. It currently remains an investigational agent in the United States, as well as outside of the EEA.

The ongoing trial led by Dr. Degasperi is specifically conducted in patients with compensated cirrhosis who also have clinically significant portal hypertension, where safety and efficacy are unknown.

Dr. Degasperi said in an interview that, although HDV was rare, there is nonetheless an “immense” need for effective therapies against it, especially in young patients with advanced liver disease.

“We have a lot of patients with hepatitis D who have not responded to other antiviral treatment. Right now, the only other available treatment is pegylated interferon,” she said. “Unfortunately, rates of sustained viral response to pegylated interferon are extremely low at around 30% of patients.”

Chronic HDV is the most severe form of viral hepatitis and can have mortality rates as high as 50% within 5 years in patients with cirrhosis.

The management of hepatitis D is also complicated by the fact that patients with advanced cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension cannot be treated with pegylated interferon owing to lack of efficacy and safety reasons, including a high risk for decompensation and liver-related complications. Pegylated interferon is contraindicated in these patients.
 

Bulevirtide at 48 weeks: A closer look at the findings

Eighteen patients with HDV, compensated cirrhosis, and clinically significant portal hypertension were consecutively enrolled in this single-center, longitudinal study.

All received bulevirtide monotherapy at 2 mg/day and underwent monitoring every 2 months. They were also treated with nucleotide analogs for their hepatitis B virus, which was suppressed when they began bulevirtide.

Clinical and virologic characteristics were collected at baseline, at weeks 4 and 8, and then every 8 weeks thereafter.

Bulevirtide led to a significant viral response such that by week 48, HDV RNA declined by 3.1 log IU/mL (range, 0.2-4.6 log IU/mL), was undetectable in six patients (33%), and was less than 100 IU/L in 50% of patients. Two patients were nonresponders. In addition, 78% of patients achieved at least an HDV RNA 2 log decline from baseline.

There was also a normalization of biochemical response in the majority of patients.

Alanine aminotransferase normalization was seen in 89% of patients and declined by a median of 34 U/L (range, 15-76 U/L) over 48 weeks. Aspartate aminotransferase declined to 39 U/L (range, 21-92 U/L). A combined response was seen in 72% of patients, reported Dr. Degasperi.

“Previously, we only had results from a phase 2 study, so we had no idea of the results over such a long treatment period,” said Dr. Degasperi. “It is also the first time we have been able to treat these patients with such advanced disease that is so difficult to manage.”

“Real-world results are typically inferior to those from clinical trials, but the viral decline is comparable to phase 2 trials, and the first report of the phase 3 trial,” said Dr. Degasperi.

Gamma-glutamyltransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, immunoglobulin G, and gamma-globulin levels also improved, whereas hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B virus RNA, hepatitis B core-related antigen, platelet, and bilirubin values did not significantly change.

“All patients were Child-Pugh score A, so well-compensated [disease]. However, they increased a little bit in liver function by week 48,” Dr. Degasperi said. “This was important for this very advanced disease population.”

She added that the safety profile was very favorable, with no adverse events, including no injection-site reactions.

There was an asymptomatic increase in serum bile acids. “No patients complained about itching or pruritus,” Dr. Degasperi said.
 

What’s ahead for bulevirtide?

In a comment, Marc Bourlière, MD, from Saint Joseph Hospital in Marseilles, France, welcomed the decrease in viral load.

“This is known to be beneficial in terms of reducing morbidity and mortality in hepatitis D,” he said. “Remember that this disease is very difficult to treat, and until now, we have had no drug available. Pegylated interferon achieves cure in only 30% of patients, and half of these relapse, so actually only 15% have a meaningful response from pegylated interferon.”

“The main issue is its use as a daily subcutaneous injection. In clinical practice, it is a little bit complicated to set up, but once done, it is quite well accepted,” he said.

“I’m impressed with these results to date because there are no other compounds that have, as yet, achieved such results. This is impressive,” he added. “But whether it translates into a long-term response we don’t yet know.”

Dr. Bourlière also noted the meaningful 2-point log decline, noting that “HDV RNA negativity where treatment can be stopped would be really meaningful, but this endpoint is hard to obtain.”

Dr. Bourlière is awaiting results of the current ongoing phase 2/3 study, which would help determine a possible final treatment duration. He is also curious to settle the ongoing debate about whether bulevirtide should be used alone or in combination.

“We need to combine bulevirtide with pegylated interferon in less-advanced patients, because we know it is more potent and active against the HDV RNA,” he said.

Dr. Degasperi has previously declared she was on the advisory board for AbbVie and has spoken and taught for Gilead, MSD, and AbbVie. Dr. Bourlière declared interests with all companies involved in the R&D of liver therapies.

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

Bulevirtide (Hepcludex) monotherapy significantly reduces the load of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) and is safe in difficult-to-treat patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension, according to the results of an ongoing 1-year study.

In presenting a poster with these findings at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, lead author Elisabetta Degasperi, MD, from the Grand Hospital Maggiore Policlinico in Milan, said that they were important “because they confirm the safety of this drug in real life.”

Dr. Degasperi and colleagues showed that bulevirtide leads to a significant viral response in 78% of patients by week 48, which was measured using the outcome of greater than 2 log decline in HDV RNA from baseline.

Dr. Degasperi added that the research still needed to assess the longer-term benefits, but “so far the 1-year results clearly show an initial benefit that is not only a good viral response but also one of disease control and a slight improvement in liver function.”
 

Addressing an immense, unmet therapeutic need

HDV requires the presence of hepatitis B virus to replicate. Bulevirtide blocks the entry of HDV and hepatitis B virus into hepatocytes.

In July 2020, it was conditionally approved in the European Economic Area for use to treat chronic HDV infection in adults with compensated liver disease upon confirmation of HDV RNA in the blood. It currently remains an investigational agent in the United States, as well as outside of the EEA.

The ongoing trial led by Dr. Degasperi is specifically conducted in patients with compensated cirrhosis who also have clinically significant portal hypertension, where safety and efficacy are unknown.

Dr. Degasperi said in an interview that, although HDV was rare, there is nonetheless an “immense” need for effective therapies against it, especially in young patients with advanced liver disease.

“We have a lot of patients with hepatitis D who have not responded to other antiviral treatment. Right now, the only other available treatment is pegylated interferon,” she said. “Unfortunately, rates of sustained viral response to pegylated interferon are extremely low at around 30% of patients.”

Chronic HDV is the most severe form of viral hepatitis and can have mortality rates as high as 50% within 5 years in patients with cirrhosis.

The management of hepatitis D is also complicated by the fact that patients with advanced cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension cannot be treated with pegylated interferon owing to lack of efficacy and safety reasons, including a high risk for decompensation and liver-related complications. Pegylated interferon is contraindicated in these patients.
 

Bulevirtide at 48 weeks: A closer look at the findings

Eighteen patients with HDV, compensated cirrhosis, and clinically significant portal hypertension were consecutively enrolled in this single-center, longitudinal study.

All received bulevirtide monotherapy at 2 mg/day and underwent monitoring every 2 months. They were also treated with nucleotide analogs for their hepatitis B virus, which was suppressed when they began bulevirtide.

Clinical and virologic characteristics were collected at baseline, at weeks 4 and 8, and then every 8 weeks thereafter.

Bulevirtide led to a significant viral response such that by week 48, HDV RNA declined by 3.1 log IU/mL (range, 0.2-4.6 log IU/mL), was undetectable in six patients (33%), and was less than 100 IU/L in 50% of patients. Two patients were nonresponders. In addition, 78% of patients achieved at least an HDV RNA 2 log decline from baseline.

There was also a normalization of biochemical response in the majority of patients.

Alanine aminotransferase normalization was seen in 89% of patients and declined by a median of 34 U/L (range, 15-76 U/L) over 48 weeks. Aspartate aminotransferase declined to 39 U/L (range, 21-92 U/L). A combined response was seen in 72% of patients, reported Dr. Degasperi.

“Previously, we only had results from a phase 2 study, so we had no idea of the results over such a long treatment period,” said Dr. Degasperi. “It is also the first time we have been able to treat these patients with such advanced disease that is so difficult to manage.”

“Real-world results are typically inferior to those from clinical trials, but the viral decline is comparable to phase 2 trials, and the first report of the phase 3 trial,” said Dr. Degasperi.

Gamma-glutamyltransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, immunoglobulin G, and gamma-globulin levels also improved, whereas hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B virus RNA, hepatitis B core-related antigen, platelet, and bilirubin values did not significantly change.

“All patients were Child-Pugh score A, so well-compensated [disease]. However, they increased a little bit in liver function by week 48,” Dr. Degasperi said. “This was important for this very advanced disease population.”

She added that the safety profile was very favorable, with no adverse events, including no injection-site reactions.

There was an asymptomatic increase in serum bile acids. “No patients complained about itching or pruritus,” Dr. Degasperi said.
 

What’s ahead for bulevirtide?

In a comment, Marc Bourlière, MD, from Saint Joseph Hospital in Marseilles, France, welcomed the decrease in viral load.

“This is known to be beneficial in terms of reducing morbidity and mortality in hepatitis D,” he said. “Remember that this disease is very difficult to treat, and until now, we have had no drug available. Pegylated interferon achieves cure in only 30% of patients, and half of these relapse, so actually only 15% have a meaningful response from pegylated interferon.”

“The main issue is its use as a daily subcutaneous injection. In clinical practice, it is a little bit complicated to set up, but once done, it is quite well accepted,” he said.

“I’m impressed with these results to date because there are no other compounds that have, as yet, achieved such results. This is impressive,” he added. “But whether it translates into a long-term response we don’t yet know.”

Dr. Bourlière also noted the meaningful 2-point log decline, noting that “HDV RNA negativity where treatment can be stopped would be really meaningful, but this endpoint is hard to obtain.”

Dr. Bourlière is awaiting results of the current ongoing phase 2/3 study, which would help determine a possible final treatment duration. He is also curious to settle the ongoing debate about whether bulevirtide should be used alone or in combination.

“We need to combine bulevirtide with pegylated interferon in less-advanced patients, because we know it is more potent and active against the HDV RNA,” he said.

Dr. Degasperi has previously declared she was on the advisory board for AbbVie and has spoken and taught for Gilead, MSD, and AbbVie. Dr. Bourlière declared interests with all companies involved in the R&D of liver therapies.

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

Bulevirtide (Hepcludex) monotherapy significantly reduces the load of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) and is safe in difficult-to-treat patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension, according to the results of an ongoing 1-year study.

In presenting a poster with these findings at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, lead author Elisabetta Degasperi, MD, from the Grand Hospital Maggiore Policlinico in Milan, said that they were important “because they confirm the safety of this drug in real life.”

Dr. Degasperi and colleagues showed that bulevirtide leads to a significant viral response in 78% of patients by week 48, which was measured using the outcome of greater than 2 log decline in HDV RNA from baseline.

Dr. Degasperi added that the research still needed to assess the longer-term benefits, but “so far the 1-year results clearly show an initial benefit that is not only a good viral response but also one of disease control and a slight improvement in liver function.”
 

Addressing an immense, unmet therapeutic need

HDV requires the presence of hepatitis B virus to replicate. Bulevirtide blocks the entry of HDV and hepatitis B virus into hepatocytes.

In July 2020, it was conditionally approved in the European Economic Area for use to treat chronic HDV infection in adults with compensated liver disease upon confirmation of HDV RNA in the blood. It currently remains an investigational agent in the United States, as well as outside of the EEA.

The ongoing trial led by Dr. Degasperi is specifically conducted in patients with compensated cirrhosis who also have clinically significant portal hypertension, where safety and efficacy are unknown.

Dr. Degasperi said in an interview that, although HDV was rare, there is nonetheless an “immense” need for effective therapies against it, especially in young patients with advanced liver disease.

“We have a lot of patients with hepatitis D who have not responded to other antiviral treatment. Right now, the only other available treatment is pegylated interferon,” she said. “Unfortunately, rates of sustained viral response to pegylated interferon are extremely low at around 30% of patients.”

Chronic HDV is the most severe form of viral hepatitis and can have mortality rates as high as 50% within 5 years in patients with cirrhosis.

The management of hepatitis D is also complicated by the fact that patients with advanced cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension cannot be treated with pegylated interferon owing to lack of efficacy and safety reasons, including a high risk for decompensation and liver-related complications. Pegylated interferon is contraindicated in these patients.
 

Bulevirtide at 48 weeks: A closer look at the findings

Eighteen patients with HDV, compensated cirrhosis, and clinically significant portal hypertension were consecutively enrolled in this single-center, longitudinal study.

All received bulevirtide monotherapy at 2 mg/day and underwent monitoring every 2 months. They were also treated with nucleotide analogs for their hepatitis B virus, which was suppressed when they began bulevirtide.

Clinical and virologic characteristics were collected at baseline, at weeks 4 and 8, and then every 8 weeks thereafter.

Bulevirtide led to a significant viral response such that by week 48, HDV RNA declined by 3.1 log IU/mL (range, 0.2-4.6 log IU/mL), was undetectable in six patients (33%), and was less than 100 IU/L in 50% of patients. Two patients were nonresponders. In addition, 78% of patients achieved at least an HDV RNA 2 log decline from baseline.

There was also a normalization of biochemical response in the majority of patients.

Alanine aminotransferase normalization was seen in 89% of patients and declined by a median of 34 U/L (range, 15-76 U/L) over 48 weeks. Aspartate aminotransferase declined to 39 U/L (range, 21-92 U/L). A combined response was seen in 72% of patients, reported Dr. Degasperi.

“Previously, we only had results from a phase 2 study, so we had no idea of the results over such a long treatment period,” said Dr. Degasperi. “It is also the first time we have been able to treat these patients with such advanced disease that is so difficult to manage.”

“Real-world results are typically inferior to those from clinical trials, but the viral decline is comparable to phase 2 trials, and the first report of the phase 3 trial,” said Dr. Degasperi.

Gamma-glutamyltransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, immunoglobulin G, and gamma-globulin levels also improved, whereas hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B virus RNA, hepatitis B core-related antigen, platelet, and bilirubin values did not significantly change.

“All patients were Child-Pugh score A, so well-compensated [disease]. However, they increased a little bit in liver function by week 48,” Dr. Degasperi said. “This was important for this very advanced disease population.”

She added that the safety profile was very favorable, with no adverse events, including no injection-site reactions.

There was an asymptomatic increase in serum bile acids. “No patients complained about itching or pruritus,” Dr. Degasperi said.
 

What’s ahead for bulevirtide?

In a comment, Marc Bourlière, MD, from Saint Joseph Hospital in Marseilles, France, welcomed the decrease in viral load.

“This is known to be beneficial in terms of reducing morbidity and mortality in hepatitis D,” he said. “Remember that this disease is very difficult to treat, and until now, we have had no drug available. Pegylated interferon achieves cure in only 30% of patients, and half of these relapse, so actually only 15% have a meaningful response from pegylated interferon.”

“The main issue is its use as a daily subcutaneous injection. In clinical practice, it is a little bit complicated to set up, but once done, it is quite well accepted,” he said.

“I’m impressed with these results to date because there are no other compounds that have, as yet, achieved such results. This is impressive,” he added. “But whether it translates into a long-term response we don’t yet know.”

Dr. Bourlière also noted the meaningful 2-point log decline, noting that “HDV RNA negativity where treatment can be stopped would be really meaningful, but this endpoint is hard to obtain.”

Dr. Bourlière is awaiting results of the current ongoing phase 2/3 study, which would help determine a possible final treatment duration. He is also curious to settle the ongoing debate about whether bulevirtide should be used alone or in combination.

“We need to combine bulevirtide with pegylated interferon in less-advanced patients, because we know it is more potent and active against the HDV RNA,” he said.

Dr. Degasperi has previously declared she was on the advisory board for AbbVie and has spoken and taught for Gilead, MSD, and AbbVie. Dr. Bourlière declared interests with all companies involved in the R&D of liver therapies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an online statement the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced its decision to recommend higher-dose and adjuvanted influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.

The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.

But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.

These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.

The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.

The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.

In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.

At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.

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

In an online statement the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced its decision to recommend higher-dose and adjuvanted influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.

The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.

But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.

These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.

The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.

The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.

In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.

At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.

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

In an online statement the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced its decision to recommend higher-dose and adjuvanted influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent, Flublok Quadrivalent, and Fluad Quadrivalent flu vaccines are among those specified in the release.

The organization says that these higher-dose vaccines may be more effective for the aging population, who often have difficulty mounting a strong enough immune response to protect themselves against the flu virus. People older than 65 years struggle the most during flu season and have the highest proportion of hospitalizations and deaths from flu, according to the release.

But the CDC believes that higher-dose vaccines have the potential to better protect against that danger. One study, from The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that high-dose/adjuvanted vaccines prevented flu in older patients 24% better than did lower-dose/nonadjuvanted vaccines.

These types of vaccines work by creating a larger immune response than a standard vaccine dose. In particular, adjuvanted vaccines contain an extra ingredient within them that helps the immune system produce a stronger reaction to the vaccine. These may be things like aluminum salts, which signal the body to respond faster. Higher-dose vaccines similarly promote a stronger immune response by having more particles of the target virus in their mixture. In theory, this means the body will create an enhanced response to the vaccine. For example, a higher-dose vaccine may quadruple the amount of antigens, compared with the standard dose.

The hope is that this recommendation may increase vaccine use across the board, says José Romero, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. As quoted in the CDC announcement, Dr. Romero said that this may help reduce racial inequities in access to flu vaccines. A 2019 meta-analysis concluded that Black and Hispanic people are around 30%-40% less likely to get the flu vaccine. So increasing the access to this medication “could help reduce health disparities by making these vaccines more available to racial and ethnic minority groups,” said Dr. Romero.

The decision, spearheaded by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, follows recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which presented on this topic during a June 22 meeting. It is now part of official CDC policy and will continue to be developed as the 2022-2023 flu season approaches.

In addition, the organization says they’ll reveal more details for their plan later this summer, in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). For now, seniors should know that they should try to get the recommended high-dose vaccines, but if they can’t, then a standard dose of whatever their provider has on hand will do.

At this point, there is still no specific vaccine recommendation for people aged under 65 years. The CDC historically avoids specifying one type of vaccine over another and says each should still be effective in younger patients.

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

These viruses want mosquitoes with good taste

Taste can be a pretty subjective sense. Not everyone agrees on what tastes good and what tastes bad. Most people would agree that freshly baked cookies taste good, but what about lima beans? And what about mosquitoes? What tastes good to a mosquito?

The answer? Blood. Blood tastes good to a mosquito. That really wasn’t a very hard question, was it? You did know the answer, didn’t you? They don’t care about cookies, and they certainly don’t care about lima beans. It’s blood that they love.

©Mathisa_s/ThinkStock

That brings us back to subjectivity, because it is possible for blood to taste even better. The secret ingredient is dengue … and Zika.

A study just published in Cell demonstrates that mice infected with dengue and Zika viruses release a volatile compound called acetophenone. “We found that flavivirus [like dengue and Zika] can utilize the increased release of acetophenone to help itself achieve its lifecycles more effectively by making their hosts more attractive to mosquito vectors,” senior author Gong Cheng of Tsinghua University, Beijing, said in a written statement.

How do they do it? The viruses, he explained, promote the proliferation of acetophenone-producing skin bacteria. “As a result, some bacteria overreplicate and produce more acetophenone. Suddenly, these sick individuals smell as delicious to mosquitoes as a tray of freshly baked cookies to a group of five-year-old children,” the statement said.

And how do you stop a group of tiny, flying 5-year-olds? That’s right, with acne medication. Really? You knew that one but not the blood one before? The investigators fed isotretinoin to the infected mice, which led to reduced acetophenone release from skin bacteria and made the animals no more attractive to the mosquitoes than their uninfected counterparts.

The investigators are planning to take the next step – feeding isotretinoin to people with dengue and Zika – having gotten the official fictional taste-test approval of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, who said, “You’re going to feed this #$^% to sick people? ARE YOU &%*$@#& KIDDING ME?”

Okay, so maybe approval isn’t quite the right word.
 

Welcome to bladders of the rich and famous!

Don’t you hate it when you’re driving out to your multimillion-dollar second home in the Hamptons and traffic is so bad you absolutely have to find a place to “rest” along the way? But wouldn’t you know it, there just isn’t anywhere to stop! Geez, how do we live?

That’s where David Shusterman, MD, a urologist in New York City and a true American hero, comes in. He’s identified a market and positioned himself as the king of both bladder surgery and “bladder Botox” for the wealthy New Yorkers who regularly make long journeys from the city out to their second homes in the Hamptons. Traffic has increased dramatically on Long Island roads in recent years, and the journey can now taking upward of 4 hours. Some people just can’t make it that long without a bathroom break, and there are very few places to stop along the way.

National Park Service/Rawpixel

Dr. Shusterman understands the plight of the Hamptons vacationer, as he told Insider.com: “I can’t tell you how many arguments I personally get into – I’ve lost three friends because I’m the driver and refuse to stop for them.” A tragedy worthy of Shakespeare himself.

During the summer season, Dr. Shusterman performs about 10 prostate artery embolizations a week, an hour-long procedure that shrinks the prostate, which is great for 50- to 60-year-old men with enlarged prostates that cause more frequent bathroom trips. He also performs Botox injections into the bladder once or twice a week for women, which reduces the need to urinate for roughly 6 months. The perfect amount of time to get them through the summer season.

These procedures are sometimes covered by insurance but can cost as much as $20,000 if paid out of pocket. That’s a lot of money to us, but if you’re the sort of person who has a second home in the Hamptons, $20,000 is chump change, especially if it means you won’t have to go 2 entire minutes out of your way to use a gas-station bathroom. Then again, having seen a more than a few gas-station bathrooms in our time, maybe they have a point.
 

Ditch the apples. Go for the avocados

We’ve all heard about “an apple a day,” but instead of apples you might want to go with avocados.

tookapic/Pixabay

Avocados are generally thought to be a healthy fat. A study just published in the Journal of the American Heart Association proves that they actually don’t do anything for your waistline but will work wonders on your cholesterol level. The study involved 923 participants who were considered overweight/obese split into two groups: One was asked to consume an avocado a day, and the other continued their usual diets and were asked to consume fewer than two avocados a month.

At the end of the 6 months, the researchers found total cholesterol decreased by an additional 2.9 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol by 2.5 mg/dL in those who ate one avocado every day, compared with the usual-diet group. And even though avocados have a lot of calories, there was no clinical evidence that it impacted weight gain or any cardiometabolic risk factors, according to a statement from Penn State University.

Avocados, then, can be considered a guilt-free food. The findings from this study suggest it can give a substantial boost to your overall quality of diet, in turn lessening your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and some cancers, Kristina Peterson, PhD, assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, said in the statement.

So get creative with your avocado recipes. You can only eat so much guacamole.
 

Your nose knows a good friend for you

You’ve probably noticed how dogs sniff other dogs and people before becoming friends. It would be pretty comical if people did the same thing, right? Just walked up to strangers and started sniffing them like dogs?

Well, apparently humans do go by smell when it comes to making friends, and they prefer people who smell like them. Maybe you’ve noticed that your friends look like you, share your values, and think the same way as you. You’re probably right, seeing as previous research has pointed to this.

For the current study, done to show how smell affects human behavior, researchers recruited people who befriended each other quickly, before knowing much about each other. They assumed that the relationships between these same-sex, nonromantic “click friends” relied more on physiological traits, including smell. After collecting samples from the click friends, researchers used an eNose to scan chemical signatures. In another experiment, human volunteers sniffed samples to determine if any were similar. Both experiments showed that click friends had more similar smells than pairs of random people.

Weizmann Institute of Science

These viruses want mosquitoes with good taste

Taste can be a pretty subjective sense. Not everyone agrees on what tastes good and what tastes bad. Most people would agree that freshly baked cookies taste good, but what about lima beans? And what about mosquitoes? What tastes good to a mosquito?

The answer? Blood. Blood tastes good to a mosquito. That really wasn’t a very hard question, was it? You did know the answer, didn’t you? They don’t care about cookies, and they certainly don’t care about lima beans. It’s blood that they love.

©Mathisa_s/ThinkStock

That brings us back to subjectivity, because it is possible for blood to taste even better. The secret ingredient is dengue … and Zika.

A study just published in Cell demonstrates that mice infected with dengue and Zika viruses release a volatile compound called acetophenone. “We found that flavivirus [like dengue and Zika] can utilize the increased release of acetophenone to help itself achieve its lifecycles more effectively by making their hosts more attractive to mosquito vectors,” senior author Gong Cheng of Tsinghua University, Beijing, said in a written statement.

How do they do it? The viruses, he explained, promote the proliferation of acetophenone-producing skin bacteria. “As a result, some bacteria overreplicate and produce more acetophenone. Suddenly, these sick individuals smell as delicious to mosquitoes as a tray of freshly baked cookies to a group of five-year-old children,” the statement said.

And how do you stop a group of tiny, flying 5-year-olds? That’s right, with acne medication. Really? You knew that one but not the blood one before? The investigators fed isotretinoin to the infected mice, which led to reduced acetophenone release from skin bacteria and made the animals no more attractive to the mosquitoes than their uninfected counterparts.

The investigators are planning to take the next step – feeding isotretinoin to people with dengue and Zika – having gotten the official fictional taste-test approval of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, who said, “You’re going to feed this #$^% to sick people? ARE YOU &%*$@#& KIDDING ME?”

Okay, so maybe approval isn’t quite the right word.
 

Welcome to bladders of the rich and famous!

Don’t you hate it when you’re driving out to your multimillion-dollar second home in the Hamptons and traffic is so bad you absolutely have to find a place to “rest” along the way? But wouldn’t you know it, there just isn’t anywhere to stop! Geez, how do we live?

That’s where David Shusterman, MD, a urologist in New York City and a true American hero, comes in. He’s identified a market and positioned himself as the king of both bladder surgery and “bladder Botox” for the wealthy New Yorkers who regularly make long journeys from the city out to their second homes in the Hamptons. Traffic has increased dramatically on Long Island roads in recent years, and the journey can now taking upward of 4 hours. Some people just can’t make it that long without a bathroom break, and there are very few places to stop along the way.

National Park Service/Rawpixel

Dr. Shusterman understands the plight of the Hamptons vacationer, as he told Insider.com: “I can’t tell you how many arguments I personally get into – I’ve lost three friends because I’m the driver and refuse to stop for them.” A tragedy worthy of Shakespeare himself.

During the summer season, Dr. Shusterman performs about 10 prostate artery embolizations a week, an hour-long procedure that shrinks the prostate, which is great for 50- to 60-year-old men with enlarged prostates that cause more frequent bathroom trips. He also performs Botox injections into the bladder once or twice a week for women, which reduces the need to urinate for roughly 6 months. The perfect amount of time to get them through the summer season.

These procedures are sometimes covered by insurance but can cost as much as $20,000 if paid out of pocket. That’s a lot of money to us, but if you’re the sort of person who has a second home in the Hamptons, $20,000 is chump change, especially if it means you won’t have to go 2 entire minutes out of your way to use a gas-station bathroom. Then again, having seen a more than a few gas-station bathrooms in our time, maybe they have a point.
 

Ditch the apples. Go for the avocados

We’ve all heard about “an apple a day,” but instead of apples you might want to go with avocados.

tookapic/Pixabay

Avocados are generally thought to be a healthy fat. A study just published in the Journal of the American Heart Association proves that they actually don’t do anything for your waistline but will work wonders on your cholesterol level. The study involved 923 participants who were considered overweight/obese split into two groups: One was asked to consume an avocado a day, and the other continued their usual diets and were asked to consume fewer than two avocados a month.

At the end of the 6 months, the researchers found total cholesterol decreased by an additional 2.9 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol by 2.5 mg/dL in those who ate one avocado every day, compared with the usual-diet group. And even though avocados have a lot of calories, there was no clinical evidence that it impacted weight gain or any cardiometabolic risk factors, according to a statement from Penn State University.

Avocados, then, can be considered a guilt-free food. The findings from this study suggest it can give a substantial boost to your overall quality of diet, in turn lessening your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and some cancers, Kristina Peterson, PhD, assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, said in the statement.

So get creative with your avocado recipes. You can only eat so much guacamole.
 

Your nose knows a good friend for you

You’ve probably noticed how dogs sniff other dogs and people before becoming friends. It would be pretty comical if people did the same thing, right? Just walked up to strangers and started sniffing them like dogs?

Well, apparently humans do go by smell when it comes to making friends, and they prefer people who smell like them. Maybe you’ve noticed that your friends look like you, share your values, and think the same way as you. You’re probably right, seeing as previous research has pointed to this.

For the current study, done to show how smell affects human behavior, researchers recruited people who befriended each other quickly, before knowing much about each other. They assumed that the relationships between these same-sex, nonromantic “click friends” relied more on physiological traits, including smell. After collecting samples from the click friends, researchers used an eNose to scan chemical signatures. In another experiment, human volunteers sniffed samples to determine if any were similar. Both experiments showed that click friends had more similar smells than pairs of random people.

Weizmann Institute of Science

These viruses want mosquitoes with good taste

Taste can be a pretty subjective sense. Not everyone agrees on what tastes good and what tastes bad. Most people would agree that freshly baked cookies taste good, but what about lima beans? And what about mosquitoes? What tastes good to a mosquito?

The answer? Blood. Blood tastes good to a mosquito. That really wasn’t a very hard question, was it? You did know the answer, didn’t you? They don’t care about cookies, and they certainly don’t care about lima beans. It’s blood that they love.

©Mathisa_s/ThinkStock

That brings us back to subjectivity, because it is possible for blood to taste even better. The secret ingredient is dengue … and Zika.

A study just published in Cell demonstrates that mice infected with dengue and Zika viruses release a volatile compound called acetophenone. “We found that flavivirus [like dengue and Zika] can utilize the increased release of acetophenone to help itself achieve its lifecycles more effectively by making their hosts more attractive to mosquito vectors,” senior author Gong Cheng of Tsinghua University, Beijing, said in a written statement.

How do they do it? The viruses, he explained, promote the proliferation of acetophenone-producing skin bacteria. “As a result, some bacteria overreplicate and produce more acetophenone. Suddenly, these sick individuals smell as delicious to mosquitoes as a tray of freshly baked cookies to a group of five-year-old children,” the statement said.

And how do you stop a group of tiny, flying 5-year-olds? That’s right, with acne medication. Really? You knew that one but not the blood one before? The investigators fed isotretinoin to the infected mice, which led to reduced acetophenone release from skin bacteria and made the animals no more attractive to the mosquitoes than their uninfected counterparts.

The investigators are planning to take the next step – feeding isotretinoin to people with dengue and Zika – having gotten the official fictional taste-test approval of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, who said, “You’re going to feed this #$^% to sick people? ARE YOU &%*$@#& KIDDING ME?”

Okay, so maybe approval isn’t quite the right word.
 

Welcome to bladders of the rich and famous!

Don’t you hate it when you’re driving out to your multimillion-dollar second home in the Hamptons and traffic is so bad you absolutely have to find a place to “rest” along the way? But wouldn’t you know it, there just isn’t anywhere to stop! Geez, how do we live?

That’s where David Shusterman, MD, a urologist in New York City and a true American hero, comes in. He’s identified a market and positioned himself as the king of both bladder surgery and “bladder Botox” for the wealthy New Yorkers who regularly make long journeys from the city out to their second homes in the Hamptons. Traffic has increased dramatically on Long Island roads in recent years, and the journey can now taking upward of 4 hours. Some people just can’t make it that long without a bathroom break, and there are very few places to stop along the way.

National Park Service/Rawpixel

Dr. Shusterman understands the plight of the Hamptons vacationer, as he told Insider.com: “I can’t tell you how many arguments I personally get into – I’ve lost three friends because I’m the driver and refuse to stop for them.” A tragedy worthy of Shakespeare himself.

During the summer season, Dr. Shusterman performs about 10 prostate artery embolizations a week, an hour-long procedure that shrinks the prostate, which is great for 50- to 60-year-old men with enlarged prostates that cause more frequent bathroom trips. He also performs Botox injections into the bladder once or twice a week for women, which reduces the need to urinate for roughly 6 months. The perfect amount of time to get them through the summer season.

These procedures are sometimes covered by insurance but can cost as much as $20,000 if paid out of pocket. That’s a lot of money to us, but if you’re the sort of person who has a second home in the Hamptons, $20,000 is chump change, especially if it means you won’t have to go 2 entire minutes out of your way to use a gas-station bathroom. Then again, having seen a more than a few gas-station bathrooms in our time, maybe they have a point.
 

Ditch the apples. Go for the avocados

We’ve all heard about “an apple a day,” but instead of apples you might want to go with avocados.

tookapic/Pixabay

Avocados are generally thought to be a healthy fat. A study just published in the Journal of the American Heart Association proves that they actually don’t do anything for your waistline but will work wonders on your cholesterol level. The study involved 923 participants who were considered overweight/obese split into two groups: One was asked to consume an avocado a day, and the other continued their usual diets and were asked to consume fewer than two avocados a month.

At the end of the 6 months, the researchers found total cholesterol decreased by an additional 2.9 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol by 2.5 mg/dL in those who ate one avocado every day, compared with the usual-diet group. And even though avocados have a lot of calories, there was no clinical evidence that it impacted weight gain or any cardiometabolic risk factors, according to a statement from Penn State University.

Avocados, then, can be considered a guilt-free food. The findings from this study suggest it can give a substantial boost to your overall quality of diet, in turn lessening your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and some cancers, Kristina Peterson, PhD, assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Texas Tech University, said in the statement.

So get creative with your avocado recipes. You can only eat so much guacamole.
 

Your nose knows a good friend for you

You’ve probably noticed how dogs sniff other dogs and people before becoming friends. It would be pretty comical if people did the same thing, right? Just walked up to strangers and started sniffing them like dogs?

Well, apparently humans do go by smell when it comes to making friends, and they prefer people who smell like them. Maybe you’ve noticed that your friends look like you, share your values, and think the same way as you. You’re probably right, seeing as previous research has pointed to this.

For the current study, done to show how smell affects human behavior, researchers recruited people who befriended each other quickly, before knowing much about each other. They assumed that the relationships between these same-sex, nonromantic “click friends” relied more on physiological traits, including smell. After collecting samples from the click friends, researchers used an eNose to scan chemical signatures. In another experiment, human volunteers sniffed samples to determine if any were similar. Both experiments showed that click friends had more similar smells than pairs of random people.

Weizmann Institute of Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herpes zoster reactivation

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

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

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

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

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

Women and young people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herpes zoster reactivation

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

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

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

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

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

Women and young people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herpes zoster reactivation

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

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

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

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

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

Women and young people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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