Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.

The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.

The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.

The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.

“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.

Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.

“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”

With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
 

Risk of thrombosis addressed

Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency

“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”

“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.

Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.

The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.

The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.

The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.

The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.

In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.

Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
 

‘Robust’ findings

“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.

Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.

“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.

“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
 

Efficacy against variants?

Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.

“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.

Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.

The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.

This article was updated March 23, 2021.

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

Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.

The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.

The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.

The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.

“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.

Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.

“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”

With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
 

Risk of thrombosis addressed

Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency

“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”

“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.

Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.

The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.

The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.

The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.

The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.

In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.

Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
 

‘Robust’ findings

“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.

Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.

“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.

“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
 

Efficacy against variants?

Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.

“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.

Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.

The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.

This article was updated March 23, 2021.

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

Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.

The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.

The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.

The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.

“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.

Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.

“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”

With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
 

Risk of thrombosis addressed

Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency

“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”

“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.

Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.

The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.

The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.

The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.

The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.

In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.

Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
 

‘Robust’ findings

“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.

Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.

“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.

“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
 

Efficacy against variants?

Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.

“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.

Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.

The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.

This article was updated March 23, 2021.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock.com

Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
 

Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar

“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”

The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”

The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m², and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.

During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.

In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)

The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.

Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable

The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.

“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock.com

Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
 

Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar

“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”

The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”

The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m², and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.

During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.

In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)

The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.

Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable

The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.

“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock.com

Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
 

Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar

“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”

The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”

The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m², and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.

During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.

In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)

The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.

Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable

The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.

“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.

“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.

Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm², compared with 0.787 g/cm²; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).

After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.

Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.

After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.

Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).

Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”

“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”

“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”

Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”

The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.

“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.

Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm², compared with 0.787 g/cm²; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).

After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.

Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.

After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.

Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).

Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”

“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”

“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”

Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”

The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.

“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.

Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm², compared with 0.787 g/cm²; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).

After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.

Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.

After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.

Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).

Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”

“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”

“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”

Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”

The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.

More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.

“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).

“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”

By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”

Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.

Analyzing surveillance data

To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.

At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.

Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.

Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.

The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.

Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population. 

In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”  

Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.

Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.

“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.

The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”

Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.

Vaccination could benefit infants

In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.

“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”

Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.

Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.

Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.

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

Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.

More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.

“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).

“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”

By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”

Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.

Analyzing surveillance data

To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.

At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.

Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.

Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.

The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.

Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population. 

In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”  

Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.

Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.

“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.

The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”

Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.

Vaccination could benefit infants

In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.

“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”

Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.

Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.

Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.

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

Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.

More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.

“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).

“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”

By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”

Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.

Analyzing surveillance data

To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.

At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.

Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.

Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.

The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.

Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population. 

In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”  

Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.

Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.

“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.

The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”

Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.

Vaccination could benefit infants

In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.

“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”

Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.

Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.

Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.

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

Most breast cancer screening centers in the United States are not following national guidelines, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.

They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.

This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.

The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.

“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.

“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.

The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.

The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.

The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.

One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.

“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.

“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.

Details of the analysis

The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.

Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.

A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.

The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most breast cancer screening centers in the United States are not following national guidelines, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.

They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.

This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.

The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.

“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.

“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.

The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.

The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.

The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.

One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.

“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.

“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.

Details of the analysis

The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.

Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.

A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.

The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most breast cancer screening centers in the United States are not following national guidelines, say researchers reporting on a new analysis.

They assessed 606 centers and report that, among the centers that recommended a starting age for screening mammography, nearly 90% advised women to begin screening at age 40 years and to continue annually.

This contrasts with the current recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on mammography screening, which stipulate starting at age 50 years and continuing every 2 years.

The new analysis was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

This may be doing “more harm than good,” warn the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The recommendation for annual mammography in women younger than 50 years is, at best, confusing for patients and is likely to conflict with advice from their primary care physicians, which can create tension,” write Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil; Deborah Grady, MD; and Rita F. Redberg, MD, all from the University of California, San Francisco.

“This recommendation can also produce unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, and anxiety among women who receive screening,” they write.

“Breast cancer centers with clear financial benefits from increased mammography rates may wish to reconsider offering recommendations that create greater referral volume but conflict with unbiased evidence-based USPSTF guidelines and have the potential to increase harms among women,” the editorialists add.

The age at which to start mammography screening has long been a contentious issue, with some experts and medical societies arguing that it should begin at 40.

The American College of Radiology, the Society of Breast Imaging, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommend that women start annual mammography screening at age 40.

The American Cancer Society’s guidelines recommend an initial screening mammogram between ages 45 and 55 and after that, screening every 1-2 years.

One expert who argues for starting at 40 years is Laurie Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging, Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

In a statement, she noted that 17% of all breast cancers are diagnosed in women in their 40s and that the majority of these women are not considered to be at high risk of developing the disease.

“Our own Mount Sinai research has shown that women with screen-detected breast cancers are less likely to need a mastectomy and are less likely to require chemotherapy or axillary node dissection,” Dr. Margolies said.

“Additionally, women who get regular breast cancer screening have a 47% lower risk of breast cancer death within 20 years of diagnosis than those not regularly screened. Skipping a mammogram can have lethal consequences,” she said.

Details of the analysis

The analysis of recommendations by breast cancer centers regarding screening mammography was carried out by Jennifer L. Marti, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

They examined 606 centers and found that 487 (80.4%) offered screening recommendations on their public websites.

Of 431 centers that recommended a starting age, 376 centers (87.2%) advised women to begin screening at age 40 years; 35 centers (8.1%) recommended beginning at age 45 years; and the remaining 20 centers (4.6%) recommended that screening begin at age 50 years.

A total of 429 centers recommended both a starting age and a screening interval. Of this group, 347 centers (80.9%) advised that annual screening begin at age 40 years. Only 16 centers (3.3%) recommended biennial mammography (as per the USPSTF guidelines). Almost three-quarters (72.7%, n = 354) recommended annual screening; 59 centers (12.1%) recommended annual or biennial screening; and 58 centers (11.9%) recommended a discussion with a physician.

The authors note that there were differences between centers according to National Cancer Institute designation, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.

Dr. Marti and coauthors, Dr. Habib and coauthors, and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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