MDedge Infectious Disease

People aged 65 or older with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) receive significantly more nonantiretroviral therapy (non-ART) medications, compared with patients with HIV who are between ages 50 and 64, according to a new study.

Moreover, in a sample of more than 900 patients with HIV, about 60% were taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication (PIM).

“Clinicians looking after persons living with HIV need to provide medication reconciliation with prioritization of medications based on the patients’ wishes and patients’ goals and life expectancy,” lead author Jacqueline McMillan, MD, clinical assistant professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Calgary (Alt.) told this news organization.

The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine.
 

Examining the pill burden

A geriatrician by training and a clinical researcher with an interest in aging in patients with HIV, Dr. McMillan said she began to observe that many older adults with HIV were on polypharmacy. “There are many other things that aging people with HIV experience, such as frailty, falls, cognitive impairment, medication nonadherence, and mortality, but in this study, we focused just on the polypharmacy,” said Dr. McMillan.

Her aim was to see if there was a way to improve the pill burden in these older adults.

“Do they need to be on all of these medications? Is there anything that we were overprescribing that they no longer needed, or possibly not prescribing and undertreating people because they were older? I wanted to have a better sense that the medications we were prescribing were appropriate and that we minimized the pill burden for older adults,” Dr. McMillan said.

Persons with HIV are at a particularly increased risk of polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions because they need antiretroviral therapy medications and medications to treat comorbidities.

“Certainly, when the ARTs were first discovered, sometimes that regimen required several pills a day, but as time has gone on and our retrovirals have gotten better, some of those requirements have narrowed down to one-pill-a-day regimens. We are now replacing that pill burden with non-HIV drugs,” said Dr. McMillan.

The researchers obtained medication reconciliation data for 951 persons with HIV aged 50 or older as of Feb. 1, 2020. The study population was receiving HIV care through the Southern Alberta HIV Clinic in Calgary. The researchers defined polypharmacy as taking five or more non-ART drugs. They defined PIMs according to the 2019 Beers criteria.

In their analysis, the researchers compared patients aged 65 or older with patients aged 50-64, as well as patients with shorter (< 10 years) and longer (> 10 years) duration of HIV infection.
 

PIM use common

The population’s mean age was 59 years, and 82% were men. The mean time since HIV diagnosis was 17.8 years, and the median time was 17 years. Most (80%) of the patients were aged 50-64 years, and 20% were 65 and older.

The researchers collected sociodemographic, clinical, medication, and laboratory data for all patients at each clinical visit.

The mean number of non-ART medications was 6.7 for the population. Patients aged 65 years or older were taking significantly more non-ART medications than patients aged 50-64 (8.4 vs. 6.3; P < .001).

Similarly, those living with HIV for more than 10 years were taking significantly more non-ART medications (mean, 6.9) than those living with HIV for 10 or fewer years (mean 6.1; P = .0168).

In all, almost 60% of patients were taking at least one PIM. The mean number of PIMs per patient was 1.6.

Patients living with diagnosed HIV infection for more than 10 years were at greater risk of PIMs (1.6 PIMs) than those with shorter duration of HIV diagnosis (1.4 PIMs; P = .06).

Dr. McMillan says she hopes her study reminds clinicians to review patients’ medications at each visit and ensure they are neither over- nor underprescribing.

“From my perspective as a geriatrician, I hope that we do more dedicated medication reconciliation to actually make sure we know what people are taking,” she said. She asks patients to bring all their medications to the office so that they can review which ones match their diagnoses.

“I want to do more patient-centered personalized care for older adults, with a focus on people who are frail and who may have a limited life expectancy, so that we don’t have someone with a short life expectancy still taking 15 medications a day,” said Dr. McMillan.
 

‘Carefully document medications’

“This study identifies potentially inappropriate medication use in a group of older people living with HIV who are particularly vulnerable to it at an earlier age because of their medical complexity or frailty than perhaps healthy older adults,” Adrian Wagg, MD, professor of healthy aging in the department of medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, told this news organization.

The study emphasizes the importance of careful documentation of medications that the patient is taking at every clinical visit, he said.

“Make sure you carefully document medications which are taken whenever you see the individual. Also try to limit the number of prescribers, because we know multiple prescribers are associated with greater likelihood of inappropriate prescribing,” Dr. Wagg said.

The move to wean patients from inappropriate medications is gaining momentum, he added.

“There is a huge movement now around actively deprescribing medications which are either no longer indicated or potentially of little benefit, given remaining life expectancy,” said Dr. Wagg. Drugs such as proton pump inhibitors, hypnotics, unrequired antidepressants, and benzodiazepines are the first targets for elimination, he concluded.

The study was funded by the University of Calgary. Dr. McMillan and Dr. Wagg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People aged 65 or older with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) receive significantly more nonantiretroviral therapy (non-ART) medications, compared with patients with HIV who are between ages 50 and 64, according to a new study.

Moreover, in a sample of more than 900 patients with HIV, about 60% were taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication (PIM).

“Clinicians looking after persons living with HIV need to provide medication reconciliation with prioritization of medications based on the patients’ wishes and patients’ goals and life expectancy,” lead author Jacqueline McMillan, MD, clinical assistant professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Calgary (Alt.) told this news organization.

The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine.
 

Examining the pill burden

A geriatrician by training and a clinical researcher with an interest in aging in patients with HIV, Dr. McMillan said she began to observe that many older adults with HIV were on polypharmacy. “There are many other things that aging people with HIV experience, such as frailty, falls, cognitive impairment, medication nonadherence, and mortality, but in this study, we focused just on the polypharmacy,” said Dr. McMillan.

Her aim was to see if there was a way to improve the pill burden in these older adults.

“Do they need to be on all of these medications? Is there anything that we were overprescribing that they no longer needed, or possibly not prescribing and undertreating people because they were older? I wanted to have a better sense that the medications we were prescribing were appropriate and that we minimized the pill burden for older adults,” Dr. McMillan said.

Persons with HIV are at a particularly increased risk of polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions because they need antiretroviral therapy medications and medications to treat comorbidities.

“Certainly, when the ARTs were first discovered, sometimes that regimen required several pills a day, but as time has gone on and our retrovirals have gotten better, some of those requirements have narrowed down to one-pill-a-day regimens. We are now replacing that pill burden with non-HIV drugs,” said Dr. McMillan.

The researchers obtained medication reconciliation data for 951 persons with HIV aged 50 or older as of Feb. 1, 2020. The study population was receiving HIV care through the Southern Alberta HIV Clinic in Calgary. The researchers defined polypharmacy as taking five or more non-ART drugs. They defined PIMs according to the 2019 Beers criteria.

In their analysis, the researchers compared patients aged 65 or older with patients aged 50-64, as well as patients with shorter (< 10 years) and longer (> 10 years) duration of HIV infection.
 

PIM use common

The population’s mean age was 59 years, and 82% were men. The mean time since HIV diagnosis was 17.8 years, and the median time was 17 years. Most (80%) of the patients were aged 50-64 years, and 20% were 65 and older.

The researchers collected sociodemographic, clinical, medication, and laboratory data for all patients at each clinical visit.

The mean number of non-ART medications was 6.7 for the population. Patients aged 65 years or older were taking significantly more non-ART medications than patients aged 50-64 (8.4 vs. 6.3; P < .001).

Similarly, those living with HIV for more than 10 years were taking significantly more non-ART medications (mean, 6.9) than those living with HIV for 10 or fewer years (mean 6.1; P = .0168).

In all, almost 60% of patients were taking at least one PIM. The mean number of PIMs per patient was 1.6.

Patients living with diagnosed HIV infection for more than 10 years were at greater risk of PIMs (1.6 PIMs) than those with shorter duration of HIV diagnosis (1.4 PIMs; P = .06).

Dr. McMillan says she hopes her study reminds clinicians to review patients’ medications at each visit and ensure they are neither over- nor underprescribing.

“From my perspective as a geriatrician, I hope that we do more dedicated medication reconciliation to actually make sure we know what people are taking,” she said. She asks patients to bring all their medications to the office so that they can review which ones match their diagnoses.

“I want to do more patient-centered personalized care for older adults, with a focus on people who are frail and who may have a limited life expectancy, so that we don’t have someone with a short life expectancy still taking 15 medications a day,” said Dr. McMillan.
 

‘Carefully document medications’

“This study identifies potentially inappropriate medication use in a group of older people living with HIV who are particularly vulnerable to it at an earlier age because of their medical complexity or frailty than perhaps healthy older adults,” Adrian Wagg, MD, professor of healthy aging in the department of medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, told this news organization.

The study emphasizes the importance of careful documentation of medications that the patient is taking at every clinical visit, he said.

“Make sure you carefully document medications which are taken whenever you see the individual. Also try to limit the number of prescribers, because we know multiple prescribers are associated with greater likelihood of inappropriate prescribing,” Dr. Wagg said.

The move to wean patients from inappropriate medications is gaining momentum, he added.

“There is a huge movement now around actively deprescribing medications which are either no longer indicated or potentially of little benefit, given remaining life expectancy,” said Dr. Wagg. Drugs such as proton pump inhibitors, hypnotics, unrequired antidepressants, and benzodiazepines are the first targets for elimination, he concluded.

The study was funded by the University of Calgary. Dr. McMillan and Dr. Wagg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People aged 65 or older with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) receive significantly more nonantiretroviral therapy (non-ART) medications, compared with patients with HIV who are between ages 50 and 64, according to a new study.

Moreover, in a sample of more than 900 patients with HIV, about 60% were taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication (PIM).

“Clinicians looking after persons living with HIV need to provide medication reconciliation with prioritization of medications based on the patients’ wishes and patients’ goals and life expectancy,” lead author Jacqueline McMillan, MD, clinical assistant professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Calgary (Alt.) told this news organization.

The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine.
 

Examining the pill burden

A geriatrician by training and a clinical researcher with an interest in aging in patients with HIV, Dr. McMillan said she began to observe that many older adults with HIV were on polypharmacy. “There are many other things that aging people with HIV experience, such as frailty, falls, cognitive impairment, medication nonadherence, and mortality, but in this study, we focused just on the polypharmacy,” said Dr. McMillan.

Her aim was to see if there was a way to improve the pill burden in these older adults.

“Do they need to be on all of these medications? Is there anything that we were overprescribing that they no longer needed, or possibly not prescribing and undertreating people because they were older? I wanted to have a better sense that the medications we were prescribing were appropriate and that we minimized the pill burden for older adults,” Dr. McMillan said.

Persons with HIV are at a particularly increased risk of polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions because they need antiretroviral therapy medications and medications to treat comorbidities.

“Certainly, when the ARTs were first discovered, sometimes that regimen required several pills a day, but as time has gone on and our retrovirals have gotten better, some of those requirements have narrowed down to one-pill-a-day regimens. We are now replacing that pill burden with non-HIV drugs,” said Dr. McMillan.

The researchers obtained medication reconciliation data for 951 persons with HIV aged 50 or older as of Feb. 1, 2020. The study population was receiving HIV care through the Southern Alberta HIV Clinic in Calgary. The researchers defined polypharmacy as taking five or more non-ART drugs. They defined PIMs according to the 2019 Beers criteria.

In their analysis, the researchers compared patients aged 65 or older with patients aged 50-64, as well as patients with shorter (< 10 years) and longer (> 10 years) duration of HIV infection.
 

PIM use common

The population’s mean age was 59 years, and 82% were men. The mean time since HIV diagnosis was 17.8 years, and the median time was 17 years. Most (80%) of the patients were aged 50-64 years, and 20% were 65 and older.

The researchers collected sociodemographic, clinical, medication, and laboratory data for all patients at each clinical visit.

The mean number of non-ART medications was 6.7 for the population. Patients aged 65 years or older were taking significantly more non-ART medications than patients aged 50-64 (8.4 vs. 6.3; P < .001).

Similarly, those living with HIV for more than 10 years were taking significantly more non-ART medications (mean, 6.9) than those living with HIV for 10 or fewer years (mean 6.1; P = .0168).

In all, almost 60% of patients were taking at least one PIM. The mean number of PIMs per patient was 1.6.

Patients living with diagnosed HIV infection for more than 10 years were at greater risk of PIMs (1.6 PIMs) than those with shorter duration of HIV diagnosis (1.4 PIMs; P = .06).

Dr. McMillan says she hopes her study reminds clinicians to review patients’ medications at each visit and ensure they are neither over- nor underprescribing.

“From my perspective as a geriatrician, I hope that we do more dedicated medication reconciliation to actually make sure we know what people are taking,” she said. She asks patients to bring all their medications to the office so that they can review which ones match their diagnoses.

“I want to do more patient-centered personalized care for older adults, with a focus on people who are frail and who may have a limited life expectancy, so that we don’t have someone with a short life expectancy still taking 15 medications a day,” said Dr. McMillan.
 

‘Carefully document medications’

“This study identifies potentially inappropriate medication use in a group of older people living with HIV who are particularly vulnerable to it at an earlier age because of their medical complexity or frailty than perhaps healthy older adults,” Adrian Wagg, MD, professor of healthy aging in the department of medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, told this news organization.

The study emphasizes the importance of careful documentation of medications that the patient is taking at every clinical visit, he said.

“Make sure you carefully document medications which are taken whenever you see the individual. Also try to limit the number of prescribers, because we know multiple prescribers are associated with greater likelihood of inappropriate prescribing,” Dr. Wagg said.

The move to wean patients from inappropriate medications is gaining momentum, he added.

“There is a huge movement now around actively deprescribing medications which are either no longer indicated or potentially of little benefit, given remaining life expectancy,” said Dr. Wagg. Drugs such as proton pump inhibitors, hypnotics, unrequired antidepressants, and benzodiazepines are the first targets for elimination, he concluded.

The study was funded by the University of Calgary. Dr. McMillan and Dr. Wagg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

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

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

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

Several inflammatory mediators increased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

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

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

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

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

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

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

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

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

Several inflammatory mediators increased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

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

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

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

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

Female sex and obesity major risk factors for not recovering

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

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

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

Several inflammatory mediators increased

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Testing the DNA of antimicrobial-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in the blood of travelers from malaria-endemic regions may help researchers monitor how drug resistance changes over time, a study from Canada reports.

“Malaria remains the deadliest vector-borne infectious disease worldwide. Plasmodium spp., most commonly P. falciparum, are responsible for [approximately] 229 million cases and 500,000 deaths from malaria annually,” the authors write in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“Our findings demonstrate an absence of genetic markers of resistance to the most powerful antimalarials on the planet – the artemisinins – in potentially deadly malaria imported primarily from sub-Saharan Africa over time. This is good news,” senior study author Andrea K. Boggild, MD, MSc, DTMH, told this news organization.

“We also showed that over 90% of falciparum malaria imports were resistant to the proguanil component of the fixed drug combination atovaquone-proguanil, a popular oral antimalarial that is first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Canada,” Dr. Boggild, an associate professor in the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, Canada, added in an email. “We documented no genetic markers of atovaquone resistance.”
 

Search for global patterns of emerging drug resistance

Dr. Boggild, the medical director of the tropical disease unit at Toronto General Hospital, and colleagues analyzed 243 whole-blood specimens that contained P. falciparum and no other Plasmodium species from the malaria biobank at the Public Health Ontario Laboratory in Toronto. They analyzed specimens from the years 2008-2009, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018 from patients ranging in age from 3 to 88 years. Of the 186 patients with a documented travel history, 81 had traveled in West Africa, the most common region, and 40 in Nigeria, the most common country. Five specimens came from travelers to Southeast Asia, and one came from a traveler to the Caribbean.

The researchers extracted DNA from whole blood and detected the parasite’s DNA by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). They analyzed 23 different single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in six genes, and quantified the prevalence of resistance markers, including genes that provoke resistance to the most common antimalarial drugs: chloroquine, mefloquine, atovaquone/proguanil, and the artemisinins.

They analyzed SNPs at atpase6 (pfATPase6), pfcrt (chloroquine resistance transporter, cytb (cytochrome b), dhfr (dihydrofolate reductase), dhps (dihydropteroate synthetase), mdr1 (multidrug resistance protein) and mdr1 copy number, and kelch13 (kelch protein gene on chromosome 13).

Over time, they detected increasing mutant genotypes for dhfr S108N (P = .001) and dhps A613T (P = .029) but decreasing mutant genotypes for mdr1 N86Y (P < .001), D1246Y (P = .003), pfcrt K76T (P = .011), and pfcrt 74-75 (P = .014). They found no kelch13 mutations. They detected fewer mutations indicating chloroquine resistance over time, suggesting less chloroquine pressure in specimens from travelers to Africa, but mutations that provided proguanil resistance increased.

“Antimalarial resistance – particularly resistance to the powerful artemisinins – continues to expand globally, and it is important to conduct routine surveillance for resistant parasites in order to inform appropriate prevention and treatment guidelines,” Dr. Boggild explained. “It cannot be presumed that a drug’s efficacy will be durable over time given the global landscape of antimalarial resistance.”

Dr. Boggild acknowledged limitations to the study, including incomplete travel history in about half of the patients, relatively few patients from Southeast Asia, and the small sample set.

“Clinicians caring for travelers before or after travel should familiarize themselves with the options for malaria prevention and treatment and understand the risk–benefit profile of each drug,” Dr. Boggild advised. 

“Resistance to proguanil means that we are reliant on the partner drug atovaquone for the antimalarial action of this formulation, which is effective only when taken with food,” she added.

Anne N. Cowell, MD, MPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Diego, was not surprised by the findings.

“The study demonstrates how quickly malaria parasites adapt and evolve to survive changes in malaria treatment,” Dr. Cowell, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These changes reflect changing malaria treatment and thus drug pressure during the time period,” she said in an email. “Because the majority of the clinical samples with a known travel history came from West Africa, and there was no clear evidence of artemisinin resistance in the area during the final time period studied, it is not surprising that they did not find kelch13 resistance mutations.

“The increase in mutations associated with proguanil resistance is concerning because atovaquone-proguanil is frequently used for prophylaxis during travel,” Dr. Cowell added. “There is no widespread evidence of resistance in travelers at this time, but it warrants monitoring.”

Sean C. Murphy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of laboratory medicine and the director of the malaria molecular diagnostic laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle, also was not surprised by the study’s results.

“It may be just a matter of time before evidence of artemisinin resistance crops up among returning travelers,” he said in an email. “When that happens, we may lose the opportunity to easily use common go-to drugs like atovaquone/proguanil to treat these patients.

“The biggest takeaway of this study is the reminder that drug-resistant malaria (including the future potential for artemisinin-resistant malaria) is just an airplane flight or two away from nonendemic places like Canada and the United States,” Dr. Murphy noted. He was not involved with this Canadian study.

“Continued investment is needed to support malaria control, drug resistance monitoring, and vaccine efforts in order to fight this relentless, terrible parasite,” he urged.

The Project Initiation Fund of Public Health Ontario funded the study. The study authors, Dr. Cowell, and Dr. Murphy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

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

Testing the DNA of antimicrobial-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in the blood of travelers from malaria-endemic regions may help researchers monitor how drug resistance changes over time, a study from Canada reports.

“Malaria remains the deadliest vector-borne infectious disease worldwide. Plasmodium spp., most commonly P. falciparum, are responsible for [approximately] 229 million cases and 500,000 deaths from malaria annually,” the authors write in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“Our findings demonstrate an absence of genetic markers of resistance to the most powerful antimalarials on the planet – the artemisinins – in potentially deadly malaria imported primarily from sub-Saharan Africa over time. This is good news,” senior study author Andrea K. Boggild, MD, MSc, DTMH, told this news organization.

“We also showed that over 90% of falciparum malaria imports were resistant to the proguanil component of the fixed drug combination atovaquone-proguanil, a popular oral antimalarial that is first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Canada,” Dr. Boggild, an associate professor in the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, Canada, added in an email. “We documented no genetic markers of atovaquone resistance.”
 

Search for global patterns of emerging drug resistance

Dr. Boggild, the medical director of the tropical disease unit at Toronto General Hospital, and colleagues analyzed 243 whole-blood specimens that contained P. falciparum and no other Plasmodium species from the malaria biobank at the Public Health Ontario Laboratory in Toronto. They analyzed specimens from the years 2008-2009, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018 from patients ranging in age from 3 to 88 years. Of the 186 patients with a documented travel history, 81 had traveled in West Africa, the most common region, and 40 in Nigeria, the most common country. Five specimens came from travelers to Southeast Asia, and one came from a traveler to the Caribbean.

The researchers extracted DNA from whole blood and detected the parasite’s DNA by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). They analyzed 23 different single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in six genes, and quantified the prevalence of resistance markers, including genes that provoke resistance to the most common antimalarial drugs: chloroquine, mefloquine, atovaquone/proguanil, and the artemisinins.

They analyzed SNPs at atpase6 (pfATPase6), pfcrt (chloroquine resistance transporter, cytb (cytochrome b), dhfr (dihydrofolate reductase), dhps (dihydropteroate synthetase), mdr1 (multidrug resistance protein) and mdr1 copy number, and kelch13 (kelch protein gene on chromosome 13).

Over time, they detected increasing mutant genotypes for dhfr S108N (P = .001) and dhps A613T (P = .029) but decreasing mutant genotypes for mdr1 N86Y (P < .001), D1246Y (P = .003), pfcrt K76T (P = .011), and pfcrt 74-75 (P = .014). They found no kelch13 mutations. They detected fewer mutations indicating chloroquine resistance over time, suggesting less chloroquine pressure in specimens from travelers to Africa, but mutations that provided proguanil resistance increased.

“Antimalarial resistance – particularly resistance to the powerful artemisinins – continues to expand globally, and it is important to conduct routine surveillance for resistant parasites in order to inform appropriate prevention and treatment guidelines,” Dr. Boggild explained. “It cannot be presumed that a drug’s efficacy will be durable over time given the global landscape of antimalarial resistance.”

Dr. Boggild acknowledged limitations to the study, including incomplete travel history in about half of the patients, relatively few patients from Southeast Asia, and the small sample set.

“Clinicians caring for travelers before or after travel should familiarize themselves with the options for malaria prevention and treatment and understand the risk–benefit profile of each drug,” Dr. Boggild advised. 

“Resistance to proguanil means that we are reliant on the partner drug atovaquone for the antimalarial action of this formulation, which is effective only when taken with food,” she added.

Anne N. Cowell, MD, MPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Diego, was not surprised by the findings.

“The study demonstrates how quickly malaria parasites adapt and evolve to survive changes in malaria treatment,” Dr. Cowell, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These changes reflect changing malaria treatment and thus drug pressure during the time period,” she said in an email. “Because the majority of the clinical samples with a known travel history came from West Africa, and there was no clear evidence of artemisinin resistance in the area during the final time period studied, it is not surprising that they did not find kelch13 resistance mutations.

“The increase in mutations associated with proguanil resistance is concerning because atovaquone-proguanil is frequently used for prophylaxis during travel,” Dr. Cowell added. “There is no widespread evidence of resistance in travelers at this time, but it warrants monitoring.”

Sean C. Murphy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of laboratory medicine and the director of the malaria molecular diagnostic laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle, also was not surprised by the study’s results.

“It may be just a matter of time before evidence of artemisinin resistance crops up among returning travelers,” he said in an email. “When that happens, we may lose the opportunity to easily use common go-to drugs like atovaquone/proguanil to treat these patients.

“The biggest takeaway of this study is the reminder that drug-resistant malaria (including the future potential for artemisinin-resistant malaria) is just an airplane flight or two away from nonendemic places like Canada and the United States,” Dr. Murphy noted. He was not involved with this Canadian study.

“Continued investment is needed to support malaria control, drug resistance monitoring, and vaccine efforts in order to fight this relentless, terrible parasite,” he urged.

The Project Initiation Fund of Public Health Ontario funded the study. The study authors, Dr. Cowell, and Dr. Murphy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

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

Testing the DNA of antimicrobial-resistant Plasmodium falciparum in the blood of travelers from malaria-endemic regions may help researchers monitor how drug resistance changes over time, a study from Canada reports.

“Malaria remains the deadliest vector-borne infectious disease worldwide. Plasmodium spp., most commonly P. falciparum, are responsible for [approximately] 229 million cases and 500,000 deaths from malaria annually,” the authors write in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“Our findings demonstrate an absence of genetic markers of resistance to the most powerful antimalarials on the planet – the artemisinins – in potentially deadly malaria imported primarily from sub-Saharan Africa over time. This is good news,” senior study author Andrea K. Boggild, MD, MSc, DTMH, told this news organization.

“We also showed that over 90% of falciparum malaria imports were resistant to the proguanil component of the fixed drug combination atovaquone-proguanil, a popular oral antimalarial that is first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Canada,” Dr. Boggild, an associate professor in the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, Canada, added in an email. “We documented no genetic markers of atovaquone resistance.”
 

Search for global patterns of emerging drug resistance

Dr. Boggild, the medical director of the tropical disease unit at Toronto General Hospital, and colleagues analyzed 243 whole-blood specimens that contained P. falciparum and no other Plasmodium species from the malaria biobank at the Public Health Ontario Laboratory in Toronto. They analyzed specimens from the years 2008-2009, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018 from patients ranging in age from 3 to 88 years. Of the 186 patients with a documented travel history, 81 had traveled in West Africa, the most common region, and 40 in Nigeria, the most common country. Five specimens came from travelers to Southeast Asia, and one came from a traveler to the Caribbean.

The researchers extracted DNA from whole blood and detected the parasite’s DNA by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). They analyzed 23 different single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in six genes, and quantified the prevalence of resistance markers, including genes that provoke resistance to the most common antimalarial drugs: chloroquine, mefloquine, atovaquone/proguanil, and the artemisinins.

They analyzed SNPs at atpase6 (pfATPase6), pfcrt (chloroquine resistance transporter, cytb (cytochrome b), dhfr (dihydrofolate reductase), dhps (dihydropteroate synthetase), mdr1 (multidrug resistance protein) and mdr1 copy number, and kelch13 (kelch protein gene on chromosome 13).

Over time, they detected increasing mutant genotypes for dhfr S108N (P = .001) and dhps A613T (P = .029) but decreasing mutant genotypes for mdr1 N86Y (P < .001), D1246Y (P = .003), pfcrt K76T (P = .011), and pfcrt 74-75 (P = .014). They found no kelch13 mutations. They detected fewer mutations indicating chloroquine resistance over time, suggesting less chloroquine pressure in specimens from travelers to Africa, but mutations that provided proguanil resistance increased.

“Antimalarial resistance – particularly resistance to the powerful artemisinins – continues to expand globally, and it is important to conduct routine surveillance for resistant parasites in order to inform appropriate prevention and treatment guidelines,” Dr. Boggild explained. “It cannot be presumed that a drug’s efficacy will be durable over time given the global landscape of antimalarial resistance.”

Dr. Boggild acknowledged limitations to the study, including incomplete travel history in about half of the patients, relatively few patients from Southeast Asia, and the small sample set.

“Clinicians caring for travelers before or after travel should familiarize themselves with the options for malaria prevention and treatment and understand the risk–benefit profile of each drug,” Dr. Boggild advised. 

“Resistance to proguanil means that we are reliant on the partner drug atovaquone for the antimalarial action of this formulation, which is effective only when taken with food,” she added.

Anne N. Cowell, MD, MPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Diego, was not surprised by the findings.

“The study demonstrates how quickly malaria parasites adapt and evolve to survive changes in malaria treatment,” Dr. Cowell, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“These changes reflect changing malaria treatment and thus drug pressure during the time period,” she said in an email. “Because the majority of the clinical samples with a known travel history came from West Africa, and there was no clear evidence of artemisinin resistance in the area during the final time period studied, it is not surprising that they did not find kelch13 resistance mutations.

“The increase in mutations associated with proguanil resistance is concerning because atovaquone-proguanil is frequently used for prophylaxis during travel,” Dr. Cowell added. “There is no widespread evidence of resistance in travelers at this time, but it warrants monitoring.”

Sean C. Murphy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of laboratory medicine and the director of the malaria molecular diagnostic laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle, also was not surprised by the study’s results.

“It may be just a matter of time before evidence of artemisinin resistance crops up among returning travelers,” he said in an email. “When that happens, we may lose the opportunity to easily use common go-to drugs like atovaquone/proguanil to treat these patients.

“The biggest takeaway of this study is the reminder that drug-resistant malaria (including the future potential for artemisinin-resistant malaria) is just an airplane flight or two away from nonendemic places like Canada and the United States,” Dr. Murphy noted. He was not involved with this Canadian study.

“Continued investment is needed to support malaria control, drug resistance monitoring, and vaccine efforts in order to fight this relentless, terrible parasite,” he urged.

The Project Initiation Fund of Public Health Ontario funded the study. The study authors, Dr. Cowell, and Dr. Murphy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

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

Vaccination rates among kindergartners in the United States dipped below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% in 2020-2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from 47 states and the District of Columbia, reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, showed the rates dipped by about 1 percentage point, compared with the previous school year for state-required vaccines. Coverage nationally was 93.9% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, 93.6% for the required number of doses of DTaP, and 93.6% for the state-required doses of varicella vaccine.

“This might not sound like much,” Georgina Peacock, MD, MPH, acting director of CDC’s immunization services division said in a press briefing. “But it amounts to at least 35,000 more children across the United States that entered kindergarten without documentation of complete vaccination against common diseases like measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox.”

The report authors, led by Ranee Seither, MPH, with the immunization services division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said the COVID-19 pandemic played a large part in the dip as children missed doctors’ appointments and states relaxed requirements with remote instruction.

States reported reluctance by parents to schedule well-child appointments and reduced access to office visits as well as longer grace periods or provisional enrollment. There was also less submission of documentation by parents, less time for school nurses to follow-up with students to document vaccines, fewer staff members to conduct kindergarten vaccination coverage assessment, lower response rates from schools, and both extended and compressed kindergarten vaccination coverage data collection schedules.

“There’s a greater proportion of parents who are questioning routine vaccines,” Jason V. Terk, MD, a Texas pediatrician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the New York Times. He said misinformation “fed the fire of distrust and skepticism that is really sort of the new pandemic of hesitancy for routine vaccines.”

The authors of the CDC report wrote: “As schools continue to return to in-person learning, enforcement of vaccination policies and follow-up with undervaccinated students are important to improve vaccination coverage.”

They urged schools and immunization programs to reach out to first-time students, including kindergartners and first-graders, and follow up with undervaccinated students.

The rate of people having an exemption from at least one vaccine remained low at 2.2% and the percentage of children with exemptions decreased in 37 states. However, an additional 3.9% who did not have a vaccine exemption were not up to date for MMR, according to the report.

Mississippi and New York had the smallest percentage of exemptions (0.1%) and Idaho had the most (8.2%). In the 2019-2020 school year, 2.5% reported an exemption from at least one vaccine. Nationally, 0.2% of kindergartners had a medical exemption and 1.9% had a nonmedical exemption.

Vaccination rates also differed among states. The New York Times noted that Maryland had a 10% drop in MMR vaccine coverage, while Wisconsin, Georgia, Wyoming, and Kentucky had declines of about 5%.

Among states reporting the measures in 2020-2021, the proportion of kindergartners attending school with no documentation of required vaccinations or exemptions ranged from 0.1% (Pennsylvania and Virginia) to 8.3% (Maryland). The state with the lowest proportion of kindergarteners out of compliance was Florida (0.2%) and Indiana had the highest out-of-compliance rate at 16.6%.

Comparing states’ performance is difficult, the authors noted, because they vary as to which vaccine and number of doses they require and by what date and what documentation they require. They also vary by data collection methods; exemptions allowed; grace period rules and provisional enrollment.

The authors, Dr. Peacock, and Dr. Terk reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Vaccination rates among kindergartners in the United States dipped below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% in 2020-2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from 47 states and the District of Columbia, reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, showed the rates dipped by about 1 percentage point, compared with the previous school year for state-required vaccines. Coverage nationally was 93.9% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, 93.6% for the required number of doses of DTaP, and 93.6% for the state-required doses of varicella vaccine.

“This might not sound like much,” Georgina Peacock, MD, MPH, acting director of CDC’s immunization services division said in a press briefing. “But it amounts to at least 35,000 more children across the United States that entered kindergarten without documentation of complete vaccination against common diseases like measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox.”

The report authors, led by Ranee Seither, MPH, with the immunization services division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said the COVID-19 pandemic played a large part in the dip as children missed doctors’ appointments and states relaxed requirements with remote instruction.

States reported reluctance by parents to schedule well-child appointments and reduced access to office visits as well as longer grace periods or provisional enrollment. There was also less submission of documentation by parents, less time for school nurses to follow-up with students to document vaccines, fewer staff members to conduct kindergarten vaccination coverage assessment, lower response rates from schools, and both extended and compressed kindergarten vaccination coverage data collection schedules.

“There’s a greater proportion of parents who are questioning routine vaccines,” Jason V. Terk, MD, a Texas pediatrician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the New York Times. He said misinformation “fed the fire of distrust and skepticism that is really sort of the new pandemic of hesitancy for routine vaccines.”

The authors of the CDC report wrote: “As schools continue to return to in-person learning, enforcement of vaccination policies and follow-up with undervaccinated students are important to improve vaccination coverage.”

They urged schools and immunization programs to reach out to first-time students, including kindergartners and first-graders, and follow up with undervaccinated students.

The rate of people having an exemption from at least one vaccine remained low at 2.2% and the percentage of children with exemptions decreased in 37 states. However, an additional 3.9% who did not have a vaccine exemption were not up to date for MMR, according to the report.

Mississippi and New York had the smallest percentage of exemptions (0.1%) and Idaho had the most (8.2%). In the 2019-2020 school year, 2.5% reported an exemption from at least one vaccine. Nationally, 0.2% of kindergartners had a medical exemption and 1.9% had a nonmedical exemption.

Vaccination rates also differed among states. The New York Times noted that Maryland had a 10% drop in MMR vaccine coverage, while Wisconsin, Georgia, Wyoming, and Kentucky had declines of about 5%.

Among states reporting the measures in 2020-2021, the proportion of kindergartners attending school with no documentation of required vaccinations or exemptions ranged from 0.1% (Pennsylvania and Virginia) to 8.3% (Maryland). The state with the lowest proportion of kindergarteners out of compliance was Florida (0.2%) and Indiana had the highest out-of-compliance rate at 16.6%.

Comparing states’ performance is difficult, the authors noted, because they vary as to which vaccine and number of doses they require and by what date and what documentation they require. They also vary by data collection methods; exemptions allowed; grace period rules and provisional enrollment.

The authors, Dr. Peacock, and Dr. Terk reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Vaccination rates among kindergartners in the United States dipped below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% in 2020-2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from 47 states and the District of Columbia, reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, showed the rates dipped by about 1 percentage point, compared with the previous school year for state-required vaccines. Coverage nationally was 93.9% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, 93.6% for the required number of doses of DTaP, and 93.6% for the state-required doses of varicella vaccine.

“This might not sound like much,” Georgina Peacock, MD, MPH, acting director of CDC’s immunization services division said in a press briefing. “But it amounts to at least 35,000 more children across the United States that entered kindergarten without documentation of complete vaccination against common diseases like measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox.”

The report authors, led by Ranee Seither, MPH, with the immunization services division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said the COVID-19 pandemic played a large part in the dip as children missed doctors’ appointments and states relaxed requirements with remote instruction.

States reported reluctance by parents to schedule well-child appointments and reduced access to office visits as well as longer grace periods or provisional enrollment. There was also less submission of documentation by parents, less time for school nurses to follow-up with students to document vaccines, fewer staff members to conduct kindergarten vaccination coverage assessment, lower response rates from schools, and both extended and compressed kindergarten vaccination coverage data collection schedules.

“There’s a greater proportion of parents who are questioning routine vaccines,” Jason V. Terk, MD, a Texas pediatrician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the New York Times. He said misinformation “fed the fire of distrust and skepticism that is really sort of the new pandemic of hesitancy for routine vaccines.”

The authors of the CDC report wrote: “As schools continue to return to in-person learning, enforcement of vaccination policies and follow-up with undervaccinated students are important to improve vaccination coverage.”

They urged schools and immunization programs to reach out to first-time students, including kindergartners and first-graders, and follow up with undervaccinated students.

The rate of people having an exemption from at least one vaccine remained low at 2.2% and the percentage of children with exemptions decreased in 37 states. However, an additional 3.9% who did not have a vaccine exemption were not up to date for MMR, according to the report.

Mississippi and New York had the smallest percentage of exemptions (0.1%) and Idaho had the most (8.2%). In the 2019-2020 school year, 2.5% reported an exemption from at least one vaccine. Nationally, 0.2% of kindergartners had a medical exemption and 1.9% had a nonmedical exemption.

Vaccination rates also differed among states. The New York Times noted that Maryland had a 10% drop in MMR vaccine coverage, while Wisconsin, Georgia, Wyoming, and Kentucky had declines of about 5%.

Among states reporting the measures in 2020-2021, the proportion of kindergartners attending school with no documentation of required vaccinations or exemptions ranged from 0.1% (Pennsylvania and Virginia) to 8.3% (Maryland). The state with the lowest proportion of kindergarteners out of compliance was Florida (0.2%) and Indiana had the highest out-of-compliance rate at 16.6%.

Comparing states’ performance is difficult, the authors noted, because they vary as to which vaccine and number of doses they require and by what date and what documentation they require. They also vary by data collection methods; exemptions allowed; grace period rules and provisional enrollment.

The authors, Dr. Peacock, and Dr. Terk reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural infection increased antibody levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Timing of fourth dose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural infection increased antibody levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Timing of fourth dose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural infection increased antibody levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Timing of fourth dose

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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