MDedge ObGyn

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

Several adverse infant outcomes were significantly more likely for infants whose mothers had diagnoses of sleep apnea or insomnia, based on data from approximately 5,000 infants.

Sleep disturbance is common during pregnancy, and “sleep disorders during pregnancy can have significant consequences for both the pregnant person and their infant,” write Jennifer N. Felder, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

However, data on the impact of maternal insomnia on specific infant outcomes are limited, they said.

In a study published recently in the journal Sleep Health, the researchers reviewed data from 3,371 pregnant women diagnosed with sleep apnea and 3,213 with insomnia. Of these, 2,357 and 2,212 were matched with controls in a propensity-score analysis. The referent controls were matched for maternal characteristics, obstetric factors, and infant factors among individuals without a sleep disorder. All were singleton pregnancies.

Adverse infant outcomes included the following:

• One- and 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7.
• Respiratory distress syndrome.
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
• Hypoglycemia.
• Infant death.
• Hospital stay of longer than 2 days for vaginal delivery or longer than 4 days for cesarean delivery.
• Emergency department visit before 3 months of age.
• Emergency department visit in the first year of life.
• Composite measure of adverse infant outcomes.

Compared with matched controls, the infants born to mothers with sleep apnea had a significantly increased risk for any adverse outcome (50.1% vs. 53.5%) and of the specific outcomes of low 1-minute Apgar scores (6.3% vs. 9.6%), neonatal ICU stays (6.3% vs. 8.4%), and an emergency department visit in the first year of life (33.6% vs. 36.9%).

For infants born to mothers with insomnia, the only significant difference in outcomes compared with controls was an increased likelihood of an emergency department visit (37.2% vs. 32.3%).

“Research on possible mechanisms of the relation between maternal prenatal sleep apnea and poorer birth and infant outcomes associations is small but growing, implicating systemic inflammation and late or prolonged fetal heart rate decelerations,” the researchers write in their discussion.

Research on insomnia during pregnancy and adverse infant outcomes is limited, and the largest studies have been complicated by the effects of insomnia medication; therefore, “our finding that infants born to mothers with an insomnia diagnosis were at increased risk of only emergency room visit, but no other analyzed infant outcomes, is important and novel,” they note.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the reliance on medical records, which may lack details on how routinely health care professionals assessed sleep disorders, the researchers noted. “Consequently, the findings presented here may reflect more severe cases of insomnia and sleep apnea, and may not represent the population of individuals with diagnosed sleep apnea or insomnia during pregnancy generally,” the authors say. Other limitations included a lack of information on treatment of sleep disorders and on the timing of diagnosis (before pregnancy or during pregnancy).

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based sample and use of codes to highlight research questions, the researchers said.

In light of the health consequences of sleep disorders in pregnancy, the data suggest that sleep apnea and insomnia in pregnant women may serve as targets for risk assessment of adverse infant outcomes, and more research is needed to determine whether addressing sleep issues reduces these outcomes, they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of California, San Francisco, Preterm Birth Initiative and by grants to lead author Dr. Felder from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and to a coauthor from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several adverse infant outcomes were significantly more likely for infants whose mothers had diagnoses of sleep apnea or insomnia, based on data from approximately 5,000 infants.

Sleep disturbance is common during pregnancy, and “sleep disorders during pregnancy can have significant consequences for both the pregnant person and their infant,” write Jennifer N. Felder, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

However, data on the impact of maternal insomnia on specific infant outcomes are limited, they said.

In a study published recently in the journal Sleep Health, the researchers reviewed data from 3,371 pregnant women diagnosed with sleep apnea and 3,213 with insomnia. Of these, 2,357 and 2,212 were matched with controls in a propensity-score analysis. The referent controls were matched for maternal characteristics, obstetric factors, and infant factors among individuals without a sleep disorder. All were singleton pregnancies.

Adverse infant outcomes included the following:

• One- and 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7.
• Respiratory distress syndrome.
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
• Hypoglycemia.
• Infant death.
• Hospital stay of longer than 2 days for vaginal delivery or longer than 4 days for cesarean delivery.
• Emergency department visit before 3 months of age.
• Emergency department visit in the first year of life.
• Composite measure of adverse infant outcomes.

Compared with matched controls, the infants born to mothers with sleep apnea had a significantly increased risk for any adverse outcome (50.1% vs. 53.5%) and of the specific outcomes of low 1-minute Apgar scores (6.3% vs. 9.6%), neonatal ICU stays (6.3% vs. 8.4%), and an emergency department visit in the first year of life (33.6% vs. 36.9%).

For infants born to mothers with insomnia, the only significant difference in outcomes compared with controls was an increased likelihood of an emergency department visit (37.2% vs. 32.3%).

“Research on possible mechanisms of the relation between maternal prenatal sleep apnea and poorer birth and infant outcomes associations is small but growing, implicating systemic inflammation and late or prolonged fetal heart rate decelerations,” the researchers write in their discussion.

Research on insomnia during pregnancy and adverse infant outcomes is limited, and the largest studies have been complicated by the effects of insomnia medication; therefore, “our finding that infants born to mothers with an insomnia diagnosis were at increased risk of only emergency room visit, but no other analyzed infant outcomes, is important and novel,” they note.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the reliance on medical records, which may lack details on how routinely health care professionals assessed sleep disorders, the researchers noted. “Consequently, the findings presented here may reflect more severe cases of insomnia and sleep apnea, and may not represent the population of individuals with diagnosed sleep apnea or insomnia during pregnancy generally,” the authors say. Other limitations included a lack of information on treatment of sleep disorders and on the timing of diagnosis (before pregnancy or during pregnancy).

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based sample and use of codes to highlight research questions, the researchers said.

In light of the health consequences of sleep disorders in pregnancy, the data suggest that sleep apnea and insomnia in pregnant women may serve as targets for risk assessment of adverse infant outcomes, and more research is needed to determine whether addressing sleep issues reduces these outcomes, they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of California, San Francisco, Preterm Birth Initiative and by grants to lead author Dr. Felder from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and to a coauthor from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several adverse infant outcomes were significantly more likely for infants whose mothers had diagnoses of sleep apnea or insomnia, based on data from approximately 5,000 infants.

Sleep disturbance is common during pregnancy, and “sleep disorders during pregnancy can have significant consequences for both the pregnant person and their infant,” write Jennifer N. Felder, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

However, data on the impact of maternal insomnia on specific infant outcomes are limited, they said.

In a study published recently in the journal Sleep Health, the researchers reviewed data from 3,371 pregnant women diagnosed with sleep apnea and 3,213 with insomnia. Of these, 2,357 and 2,212 were matched with controls in a propensity-score analysis. The referent controls were matched for maternal characteristics, obstetric factors, and infant factors among individuals without a sleep disorder. All were singleton pregnancies.

Adverse infant outcomes included the following:

• One- and 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7.
• Respiratory distress syndrome.
• Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
• Hypoglycemia.
• Infant death.
• Hospital stay of longer than 2 days for vaginal delivery or longer than 4 days for cesarean delivery.
• Emergency department visit before 3 months of age.
• Emergency department visit in the first year of life.
• Composite measure of adverse infant outcomes.

Compared with matched controls, the infants born to mothers with sleep apnea had a significantly increased risk for any adverse outcome (50.1% vs. 53.5%) and of the specific outcomes of low 1-minute Apgar scores (6.3% vs. 9.6%), neonatal ICU stays (6.3% vs. 8.4%), and an emergency department visit in the first year of life (33.6% vs. 36.9%).

For infants born to mothers with insomnia, the only significant difference in outcomes compared with controls was an increased likelihood of an emergency department visit (37.2% vs. 32.3%).

“Research on possible mechanisms of the relation between maternal prenatal sleep apnea and poorer birth and infant outcomes associations is small but growing, implicating systemic inflammation and late or prolonged fetal heart rate decelerations,” the researchers write in their discussion.

Research on insomnia during pregnancy and adverse infant outcomes is limited, and the largest studies have been complicated by the effects of insomnia medication; therefore, “our finding that infants born to mothers with an insomnia diagnosis were at increased risk of only emergency room visit, but no other analyzed infant outcomes, is important and novel,” they note.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the reliance on medical records, which may lack details on how routinely health care professionals assessed sleep disorders, the researchers noted. “Consequently, the findings presented here may reflect more severe cases of insomnia and sleep apnea, and may not represent the population of individuals with diagnosed sleep apnea or insomnia during pregnancy generally,” the authors say. Other limitations included a lack of information on treatment of sleep disorders and on the timing of diagnosis (before pregnancy or during pregnancy).

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based sample and use of codes to highlight research questions, the researchers said.

In light of the health consequences of sleep disorders in pregnancy, the data suggest that sleep apnea and insomnia in pregnant women may serve as targets for risk assessment of adverse infant outcomes, and more research is needed to determine whether addressing sleep issues reduces these outcomes, they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of California, San Francisco, Preterm Birth Initiative and by grants to lead author Dr. Felder from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and to a coauthor from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Findings from the LymphVAX study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium show that relatively few women with breast cancer who are at risk for lymphedema develop lymph node swelling after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Lymph node swelling can be a particularly troubling side effect, since it could be mistaken for breast cancer progression. In this study, of 621 women who received the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% developed lymph node swelling as compared with 12.9% of 621 women who received the second dose, and 11.3% of 469 women who received the third dose. The findings were comparable to those of studies conducted of the general population, said study author Brooke C. Juhel, BS, a clinical research coordinator in the lymphedema research program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a student at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In the general population, 10.2% experienced lymph node swelling after the first dose and 14% after the second dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and studies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“This is consistent with the hypothesis that, after repeated vaccine doses, the immune system already has the antigens ready to fight the virus, thus the side effects may worsen as the immune response has increased,” she said. “Having screened over 6,500 women for breast cancer–related lymphedema, and with our patients reaching out with concerns about vaccine side effects, we were in a unique position to conduct this study.”

The study also confirmed that the most common side effects of receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for women treated for breast cancer included injection site soreness, fatigue, muscle soreness, headache and chills lasting an average of 48 hours, which are symptoms comparable with those experienced by the general population.

“The side-effect profiles reported in this study for a cohort of women treated for breast cancer can be used to provide evidence-based patient education regarding future COVID-19 vaccine administration. The effect of the COVID-19 vaccines on breast cancer–related lymphedema risk is currently unknown and more research is required. In the interim, we would recommend vaccination away from the side of lymph node removal, either in the contralateral arm or in the thigh,” Ms. Juhel said.

The median duration of lymph node swelling was less than 1 week. In cases where lymph node swelling occurred after the first dose, 54.1% had swelling in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes, and 45.9% in contralateral axillary lymph nodes. About 29.5% experienced swelling in ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph nodes, and 18.0% in contralateral supraclavicular lymph nodes.

Injection-site soreness, fatigue, GMS, headache, and chills occurred less often among older individuals (P < .001), and fatigue, muscle soreness, headache, and chills occurred more frequently after the second dose than the first (P < .001). The median duration of all side effects was 48 hours or less.

“The informed education that can be produced based on these results will hopefully ease the fears of women treated for breast cancer and empower them to make informed decisions regarding future vaccine doses,” Ms. Juhel said.

Ms. Juhel has no relevant financial disclosures.

In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.

Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.

“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.

Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.

“The findings confirmed my suspicion that most patients did not get a mammogram during the lockdown. And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.

Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”

Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.

The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.

The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.

The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).

They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.

Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”

Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.

In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.

Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.

“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.

Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.

“The findings confirmed my suspicion that most patients did not get a mammogram during the lockdown. And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.

Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”

Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.

The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.

The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.

The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).

They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.

Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”

Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.

In a series of studies recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women with breast cancer, researchers report that ethnicity played a role in later diagnoses, Hispanics presented with more advanced and aggressive disease, and a focus on a single hospital in San Antonio finds a statistical difference between stage at diagnosis prior to the pandemic, compared with the postvaccine era.

Patients treated at the Mays Cancer Center, a cancer hospital of University of Texas Health and MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Antonio, during the pandemic were found to more likely present with advanced disease between March and December 2020, according to Marcela Mazo, MD, an oncologist with UT Health, San Antonio, and an author of each of three studies.

“We learned that Hispanic patients were presenting with more aggressive histologies such as HER2-positive and triple-negative disease. We also confirmed what we were suspecting, which is that Latina women had less access to medical coverage. We had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients presenting to us without medical coverage, which of course made the treatment extremely challenging,” said Dr. Mazo.

Hispanics are one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States, and understanding the factors that affect their healthcare is critical to formulating health policies.

“The findings confirmed my suspicion that most patients did not get a mammogram during the lockdown. And I’m sad to say that, even after everything opened up and people could get vaccinated, I still saw some patients who, for whatever reason, did not get a mammogram – which led to [more] clinical presentations of advanced cancer by the time they were seen by us,” she said.

Dr. Mazo said that underscreened women could also be considered victims of the pandemic. “I tell my patients to get their vaccines so they’re protected and they can feel more comfortable going to the doctor where there is a higher proportion of people who could potentially have COVID.”

Other studies have shown that patients in general, regardless of race or ethnicity, have been diagnosed with later-stage breast cancer diagnoses during the pandemic.

The three studies are based on an analysis of 696 patients treated at Mays Cancer Center. Of these, 264 were diagnosed before the pandemic (cohort A), 171 during the lockdown (Apr. 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, cohort B) and 261 after vaccines were introduced (Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2021, cohort C). Overall, there was a slight trend toward a higher incidence of HER2-positive disease during the lockdown period (odds ratio, 1.45) and in the postvaccine period (OR, 1.40), though neither relationship was statistically significant (P = .2). No relationships were seen between time period and incidence of triple-negative breast cancer.

The researchers found that Hispanic patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease in the pandemic years, compared with pre-COVID times. For example, the likelihood of being diagnosed with carcinoma in situ (Tis) versus T1 disease was lower in the postvaccine era than the pre-COVID era (OR, 0.38; P < .001), although there was no significant difference in Tis versus T1 during the lockdown period, compared with the pre-COVID era. The researchers concluded the difference was likely caused by the latency period of breast cancer.

The postvaccine era saw a 15% increase in patients diagnosed with HER2-positive disease, compared with the pre-COVID era. Patients diagnosed in the COVID era (cohorts B and C) were more likely to require neoadjuvant therapy than patients diagnosed in the pre-COVID era (OR, 1.78; P = .009).

They also found significant disparities in health insurance coverage. 91% of non-Hispanic patients were covered by insurance, compared with 70% of Hispanic patients.

Overall, the findings hint at the depth of health care inequities faced by Hispanic women in the region, and should be a call for action, Dr. Mazo said. “I wish that we as physicians would take the lead to do the best we can to support legislative changes that could help all of our patients get treated – independent of where they come from.”

Dr. Mazo has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.