User login
COVID-19 vaccine mandates are working, public health experts say
Some organizations have reported vaccination rates that jumped from less than 50% to more than 90%, according to ABC News. Workplace mandates have especially encouraged employees who were on the fence to get a shot.
“In general, vaccine mandates work,” James Colgrove, a public health professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, told ABC News.
For decades, the United States has monitored the effectiveness of vaccine mandates in schools, he noted, which have successfully required shots against measles, mumps, and other illnesses that used to be widespread. Certain employees, such as hospital workers, must take vaccines for their jobs, he said, and those requirements have also been effective over the years.
“The more normalized it becomes, the more people [know] someone else who is vaccinated, the more people will comply,” he said. “With any vaccine, the longer it’s been around, the more people get with it.”
With the widespread and contagious nature of COVID-19, workplaces have been forced to consider vaccine mandates to protect their employees and prevent worker shortages, Dr. Colgrove said.
Some companies began to issue vaccine rules this summer as the Delta variant caused a jump in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Major companies, including Google, Tyson Foods, United Airlines, and the Walt Disney Company, required in-person employees to get a shot. So far, the results from those mandates have been strong, ABC News reported.
For instance, Tyson announced a mandate in August, when less than half of its 140,000 employees were vaccinated. When the deadline came at the end of October, more than 60,000 additional employees had been vaccinated, and the vaccination rate was 96%.
“Has this made a difference in the health and safety of our team members? Absolutely. We’ve seen a significant decline in the number of active cases companywide,” Donnie King, CEO and president of Tyson Foods, said in a statement.
United Airlines has also shared that 99.7% of its 67,000 employees are vaccinated. Within 48 hours of announcing its mandate, the number of unvaccinated staffers fell from 593 to 320 people, ABC News reported.
Vaccine mandates appear to be working in the public sector as well. State health department officials in Washington told ABC News that the percentage of public employees who were vaccinated jumped from 49% in September to 96% by the vaccine mandate deadline in October.
Vaccination rates have also increased in New York City, where some employees in the fire, police, and sanitation departments protested the mandate. By the deadline, vaccination rates shifted from less than 75% to 82% in the fire department, 86% in the police department, and 91% of EMS personnel, ABC News reported.
Overall, vaccine mandates tend to reach groups who aren’t completely against the vaccine, medical experts told the news outlet. A small percentage of the population truly opposes the shot, and in most cases, unvaccinated people are on the fence or haven’t seen good enough messaging for it.
“When you look at vaccine resistance, the people who are the most opposed often make a very large amount of noise that is at odds with the actual numbers who are against vaccination,” Dr. Colgrove said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Some organizations have reported vaccination rates that jumped from less than 50% to more than 90%, according to ABC News. Workplace mandates have especially encouraged employees who were on the fence to get a shot.
“In general, vaccine mandates work,” James Colgrove, a public health professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, told ABC News.
For decades, the United States has monitored the effectiveness of vaccine mandates in schools, he noted, which have successfully required shots against measles, mumps, and other illnesses that used to be widespread. Certain employees, such as hospital workers, must take vaccines for their jobs, he said, and those requirements have also been effective over the years.
“The more normalized it becomes, the more people [know] someone else who is vaccinated, the more people will comply,” he said. “With any vaccine, the longer it’s been around, the more people get with it.”
With the widespread and contagious nature of COVID-19, workplaces have been forced to consider vaccine mandates to protect their employees and prevent worker shortages, Dr. Colgrove said.
Some companies began to issue vaccine rules this summer as the Delta variant caused a jump in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Major companies, including Google, Tyson Foods, United Airlines, and the Walt Disney Company, required in-person employees to get a shot. So far, the results from those mandates have been strong, ABC News reported.
For instance, Tyson announced a mandate in August, when less than half of its 140,000 employees were vaccinated. When the deadline came at the end of October, more than 60,000 additional employees had been vaccinated, and the vaccination rate was 96%.
“Has this made a difference in the health and safety of our team members? Absolutely. We’ve seen a significant decline in the number of active cases companywide,” Donnie King, CEO and president of Tyson Foods, said in a statement.
United Airlines has also shared that 99.7% of its 67,000 employees are vaccinated. Within 48 hours of announcing its mandate, the number of unvaccinated staffers fell from 593 to 320 people, ABC News reported.
Vaccine mandates appear to be working in the public sector as well. State health department officials in Washington told ABC News that the percentage of public employees who were vaccinated jumped from 49% in September to 96% by the vaccine mandate deadline in October.
Vaccination rates have also increased in New York City, where some employees in the fire, police, and sanitation departments protested the mandate. By the deadline, vaccination rates shifted from less than 75% to 82% in the fire department, 86% in the police department, and 91% of EMS personnel, ABC News reported.
Overall, vaccine mandates tend to reach groups who aren’t completely against the vaccine, medical experts told the news outlet. A small percentage of the population truly opposes the shot, and in most cases, unvaccinated people are on the fence or haven’t seen good enough messaging for it.
“When you look at vaccine resistance, the people who are the most opposed often make a very large amount of noise that is at odds with the actual numbers who are against vaccination,” Dr. Colgrove said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Some organizations have reported vaccination rates that jumped from less than 50% to more than 90%, according to ABC News. Workplace mandates have especially encouraged employees who were on the fence to get a shot.
“In general, vaccine mandates work,” James Colgrove, a public health professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, told ABC News.
For decades, the United States has monitored the effectiveness of vaccine mandates in schools, he noted, which have successfully required shots against measles, mumps, and other illnesses that used to be widespread. Certain employees, such as hospital workers, must take vaccines for their jobs, he said, and those requirements have also been effective over the years.
“The more normalized it becomes, the more people [know] someone else who is vaccinated, the more people will comply,” he said. “With any vaccine, the longer it’s been around, the more people get with it.”
With the widespread and contagious nature of COVID-19, workplaces have been forced to consider vaccine mandates to protect their employees and prevent worker shortages, Dr. Colgrove said.
Some companies began to issue vaccine rules this summer as the Delta variant caused a jump in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Major companies, including Google, Tyson Foods, United Airlines, and the Walt Disney Company, required in-person employees to get a shot. So far, the results from those mandates have been strong, ABC News reported.
For instance, Tyson announced a mandate in August, when less than half of its 140,000 employees were vaccinated. When the deadline came at the end of October, more than 60,000 additional employees had been vaccinated, and the vaccination rate was 96%.
“Has this made a difference in the health and safety of our team members? Absolutely. We’ve seen a significant decline in the number of active cases companywide,” Donnie King, CEO and president of Tyson Foods, said in a statement.
United Airlines has also shared that 99.7% of its 67,000 employees are vaccinated. Within 48 hours of announcing its mandate, the number of unvaccinated staffers fell from 593 to 320 people, ABC News reported.
Vaccine mandates appear to be working in the public sector as well. State health department officials in Washington told ABC News that the percentage of public employees who were vaccinated jumped from 49% in September to 96% by the vaccine mandate deadline in October.
Vaccination rates have also increased in New York City, where some employees in the fire, police, and sanitation departments protested the mandate. By the deadline, vaccination rates shifted from less than 75% to 82% in the fire department, 86% in the police department, and 91% of EMS personnel, ABC News reported.
Overall, vaccine mandates tend to reach groups who aren’t completely against the vaccine, medical experts told the news outlet. A small percentage of the population truly opposes the shot, and in most cases, unvaccinated people are on the fence or haven’t seen good enough messaging for it.
“When you look at vaccine resistance, the people who are the most opposed often make a very large amount of noise that is at odds with the actual numbers who are against vaccination,” Dr. Colgrove said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Do adolescents develop CNS autoimmunity after COVID-19?
Recent research suggests that some pediatric patients who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from COVID-19 may have intrathecal antineural SARS-CoV-2 autoantibodies, which may hint at central nervous system (CNS) autoimmunity in these patients.
“Overall, these findings indicate that severe neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur in the setting of pediatric COVID-19, including patients who lack many of the cardinal systemic features,” Christopher M. Bartley, MD, PhD, of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote in their study. “These data highlight the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion and/or CNS autoimmunity in pediatric patients with COVID-19 and neuropsychiatric symptoms.”
In a case series published Oct. 25 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3821), Dr. Bartley and colleagues examined three pediatric patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and, over a period of 5 months in 2020, were admitted to the hospital – where they received a neurology consultation for “subacute, functionally impairing behavioral changes.”
Patient 1 had a history of unspecified anxiety and depression, and was admitted for erratic behavior, paranoia-like fears, social withdrawal, and insomnia. The patient did not respond to treatment with risperidone and gabapentin, and was readmitted soon after discharge, then treated with olanzapine followed by a transition to valproate and lorazepam. It was found the patient had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) abnormalities in the form of elevated protein levels, and an elevated IgG index, and was given intravenous immunoglobulin followed by IV methylprednisolone. While symptoms such as paranoia improved and the patient was able to better organize thoughts after 5 days, other symptoms such as delusions and hyperreflexia persisted for at least 1 month before resolving, and some symptoms, such as lability, did not resolve before discharge.
Patient 2 had a history of motor tics and anxiety, but showed signs of insomnia, mood lability, impaired concentration, difficulty finding words, and problems completing homework following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient’s father previously had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and the patient developed respiratory symptoms and fever; an IgG serology test later confirmed a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient went on to experience internal preoccupation, aggression, and suicidal ideation. The patients was treated with aripiprazole and risperidone, but did not respond, and was admitted to the hospital. As with patient 1, patient 2 had CSF abnormalities in the form of elevated protein levels, and responded to IV methylprednisolone, with working memory and bradyphrenia improving. However, the patient developed insomnia, extreme anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and sadness after discharge, and was readmitted. The patient was treated with IV immunoglobulin, and discharged with quetiapine and lithium.
“Six months later, although improved from initial presentation, the patient required academic accommodations and continued to endorse forgetfulness and attention difficulties. The patient’s chronic tics and anxiety were unchanged,” Dr. Bartley and colleagues wrote.
Patient 3 had no psychiatric history but started to demonstrate “odd behavior, including repetitive behaviors, anorexia, and insomnia” following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. After being hospitalized, the patient showed signs of “ideomotor apraxia, abulia, disorganized behavior, agitation, and diffusely brisk reflexes” and had a high white blood cell count, creatine kinase level, and C-reactive protein level. CSF was also abnormal for this patient, with three unique oligoclonal bands identified. The patient was treated with lorazepam and olanzapine, did not receive immunotherapy, and was discharged without psychiatric medications after 4 days.
When the researchers performed testing on each of the three patients, they found intrathecal anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and immunostained mouse brain tissue, and “a diverse set of candidate autoantigens by human phage immunoprecipitation sequencing” in patient 1 and patient 2. In comparison, patient 3 “neither appreciably immunostained nor enriched candidates by human phage immunoprecipitation sequencing,” the researchers said.
“ and the potential for immunotherapy in some,” Dr. Bartley and colleagues concluded.
Potential of CNS autoimmunity
Evan J. Kyzar, MD, PhD, a resident physician in psychiatry at New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York Presbyterian–Columbia Campus, said in an interview that the results of the case series show some pediatric patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms can have anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after viral clearance.
“Interestingly, some of the patients in this study also had antibodies in the CSF that targeted native proteins, demonstrating that COVID-19 may lead to autoimmunity directed at the brain,” he said. “This study increases our knowledge of how COVID-19 interacts with the nervous system and how autoimmune mechanisms might be contributing to at least a portion of patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms during acute infection, and possibly even after viral clearance.”
Dr. Kyzar noted that the immunological methods in the study were “cutting-edge” and the validation exploring the immune responses was detailed, but was limited because of the small sample size.
“[T]he researchers are using similar techniques to explore psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia to determine if some patients diagnosed with these conditions may have CNS-targeting autoantibodies that contribute to their symptoms and clinical presentation,” Dr. Kyzar said. “This work has the potential to discover novel neuroimmune mechanisms contributing to neuropsychiatric disease and offer possible pathways for the discovery of new treatments.”
The authors reported financial relationships with Allen & Company, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Public Health Company, Roche/Genentech, Sandler Foundation, and Takeda in the form of grants and personal fees. They reported funding and/or support from the Brain Research Foundation, Hanna H. Gray Fellowship, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, John A. Watson Scholar Program, Latinx Center of Excellence, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, and Shared Instrumentation grant. Dr. Kyzar reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Recent research suggests that some pediatric patients who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from COVID-19 may have intrathecal antineural SARS-CoV-2 autoantibodies, which may hint at central nervous system (CNS) autoimmunity in these patients.
“Overall, these findings indicate that severe neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur in the setting of pediatric COVID-19, including patients who lack many of the cardinal systemic features,” Christopher M. Bartley, MD, PhD, of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote in their study. “These data highlight the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion and/or CNS autoimmunity in pediatric patients with COVID-19 and neuropsychiatric symptoms.”
In a case series published Oct. 25 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3821), Dr. Bartley and colleagues examined three pediatric patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and, over a period of 5 months in 2020, were admitted to the hospital – where they received a neurology consultation for “subacute, functionally impairing behavioral changes.”
Patient 1 had a history of unspecified anxiety and depression, and was admitted for erratic behavior, paranoia-like fears, social withdrawal, and insomnia. The patient did not respond to treatment with risperidone and gabapentin, and was readmitted soon after discharge, then treated with olanzapine followed by a transition to valproate and lorazepam. It was found the patient had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) abnormalities in the form of elevated protein levels, and an elevated IgG index, and was given intravenous immunoglobulin followed by IV methylprednisolone. While symptoms such as paranoia improved and the patient was able to better organize thoughts after 5 days, other symptoms such as delusions and hyperreflexia persisted for at least 1 month before resolving, and some symptoms, such as lability, did not resolve before discharge.
Patient 2 had a history of motor tics and anxiety, but showed signs of insomnia, mood lability, impaired concentration, difficulty finding words, and problems completing homework following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient’s father previously had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and the patient developed respiratory symptoms and fever; an IgG serology test later confirmed a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient went on to experience internal preoccupation, aggression, and suicidal ideation. The patients was treated with aripiprazole and risperidone, but did not respond, and was admitted to the hospital. As with patient 1, patient 2 had CSF abnormalities in the form of elevated protein levels, and responded to IV methylprednisolone, with working memory and bradyphrenia improving. However, the patient developed insomnia, extreme anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and sadness after discharge, and was readmitted. The patient was treated with IV immunoglobulin, and discharged with quetiapine and lithium.
“Six months later, although improved from initial presentation, the patient required academic accommodations and continued to endorse forgetfulness and attention difficulties. The patient’s chronic tics and anxiety were unchanged,” Dr. Bartley and colleagues wrote.
Patient 3 had no psychiatric history but started to demonstrate “odd behavior, including repetitive behaviors, anorexia, and insomnia” following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. After being hospitalized, the patient showed signs of “ideomotor apraxia, abulia, disorganized behavior, agitation, and diffusely brisk reflexes” and had a high white blood cell count, creatine kinase level, and C-reactive protein level. CSF was also abnormal for this patient, with three unique oligoclonal bands identified. The patient was treated with lorazepam and olanzapine, did not receive immunotherapy, and was discharged without psychiatric medications after 4 days.
When the researchers performed testing on each of the three patients, they found intrathecal anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and immunostained mouse brain tissue, and “a diverse set of candidate autoantigens by human phage immunoprecipitation sequencing” in patient 1 and patient 2. In comparison, patient 3 “neither appreciably immunostained nor enriched candidates by human phage immunoprecipitation sequencing,” the researchers said.
“ and the potential for immunotherapy in some,” Dr. Bartley and colleagues concluded.
Potential of CNS autoimmunity
Evan J. Kyzar, MD, PhD, a resident physician in psychiatry at New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York Presbyterian–Columbia Campus, said in an interview that the results of the case series show some pediatric patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms can have anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after viral clearance.
“Interestingly, some of the patients in this study also had antibodies in the CSF that targeted native proteins, demonstrating that COVID-19 may lead to autoimmunity directed at the brain,” he said. “This study increases our knowledge of how COVID-19 interacts with the nervous system and how autoimmune mechanisms might be contributing to at least a portion of patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms during acute infection, and possibly even after viral clearance.”
Dr. Kyzar noted that the immunological methods in the study were “cutting-edge” and the validation exploring the immune responses was detailed, but was limited because of the small sample size.
“[T]he researchers are using similar techniques to explore psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia to determine if some patients diagnosed with these conditions may have CNS-targeting autoantibodies that contribute to their symptoms and clinical presentation,” Dr. Kyzar said. “This work has the potential to discover novel neuroimmune mechanisms contributing to neuropsychiatric disease and offer possible pathways for the discovery of new treatments.”
The authors reported financial relationships with Allen & Company, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Public Health Company, Roche/Genentech, Sandler Foundation, and Takeda in the form of grants and personal fees. They reported funding and/or support from the Brain Research Foundation, Hanna H. Gray Fellowship, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, John A. Watson Scholar Program, Latinx Center of Excellence, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, and Shared Instrumentation grant. Dr. Kyzar reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Recent research suggests that some pediatric patients who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from COVID-19 may have intrathecal antineural SARS-CoV-2 autoantibodies, which may hint at central nervous system (CNS) autoimmunity in these patients.
“Overall, these findings indicate that severe neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur in the setting of pediatric COVID-19, including patients who lack many of the cardinal systemic features,” Christopher M. Bartley, MD, PhD, of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote in their study. “These data highlight the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion and/or CNS autoimmunity in pediatric patients with COVID-19 and neuropsychiatric symptoms.”
In a case series published Oct. 25 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3821), Dr. Bartley and colleagues examined three pediatric patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and, over a period of 5 months in 2020, were admitted to the hospital – where they received a neurology consultation for “subacute, functionally impairing behavioral changes.”
Patient 1 had a history of unspecified anxiety and depression, and was admitted for erratic behavior, paranoia-like fears, social withdrawal, and insomnia. The patient did not respond to treatment with risperidone and gabapentin, and was readmitted soon after discharge, then treated with olanzapine followed by a transition to valproate and lorazepam. It was found the patient had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) abnormalities in the form of elevated protein levels, and an elevated IgG index, and was given intravenous immunoglobulin followed by IV methylprednisolone. While symptoms such as paranoia improved and the patient was able to better organize thoughts after 5 days, other symptoms such as delusions and hyperreflexia persisted for at least 1 month before resolving, and some symptoms, such as lability, did not resolve before discharge.
Patient 2 had a history of motor tics and anxiety, but showed signs of insomnia, mood lability, impaired concentration, difficulty finding words, and problems completing homework following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient’s father previously had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and the patient developed respiratory symptoms and fever; an IgG serology test later confirmed a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patient went on to experience internal preoccupation, aggression, and suicidal ideation. The patients was treated with aripiprazole and risperidone, but did not respond, and was admitted to the hospital. As with patient 1, patient 2 had CSF abnormalities in the form of elevated protein levels, and responded to IV methylprednisolone, with working memory and bradyphrenia improving. However, the patient developed insomnia, extreme anxiety, suicidal ideation, aggression, and sadness after discharge, and was readmitted. The patient was treated with IV immunoglobulin, and discharged with quetiapine and lithium.
“Six months later, although improved from initial presentation, the patient required academic accommodations and continued to endorse forgetfulness and attention difficulties. The patient’s chronic tics and anxiety were unchanged,” Dr. Bartley and colleagues wrote.
Patient 3 had no psychiatric history but started to demonstrate “odd behavior, including repetitive behaviors, anorexia, and insomnia” following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. After being hospitalized, the patient showed signs of “ideomotor apraxia, abulia, disorganized behavior, agitation, and diffusely brisk reflexes” and had a high white blood cell count, creatine kinase level, and C-reactive protein level. CSF was also abnormal for this patient, with three unique oligoclonal bands identified. The patient was treated with lorazepam and olanzapine, did not receive immunotherapy, and was discharged without psychiatric medications after 4 days.
When the researchers performed testing on each of the three patients, they found intrathecal anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and immunostained mouse brain tissue, and “a diverse set of candidate autoantigens by human phage immunoprecipitation sequencing” in patient 1 and patient 2. In comparison, patient 3 “neither appreciably immunostained nor enriched candidates by human phage immunoprecipitation sequencing,” the researchers said.
“ and the potential for immunotherapy in some,” Dr. Bartley and colleagues concluded.
Potential of CNS autoimmunity
Evan J. Kyzar, MD, PhD, a resident physician in psychiatry at New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York Presbyterian–Columbia Campus, said in an interview that the results of the case series show some pediatric patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms can have anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after viral clearance.
“Interestingly, some of the patients in this study also had antibodies in the CSF that targeted native proteins, demonstrating that COVID-19 may lead to autoimmunity directed at the brain,” he said. “This study increases our knowledge of how COVID-19 interacts with the nervous system and how autoimmune mechanisms might be contributing to at least a portion of patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms during acute infection, and possibly even after viral clearance.”
Dr. Kyzar noted that the immunological methods in the study were “cutting-edge” and the validation exploring the immune responses was detailed, but was limited because of the small sample size.
“[T]he researchers are using similar techniques to explore psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia to determine if some patients diagnosed with these conditions may have CNS-targeting autoantibodies that contribute to their symptoms and clinical presentation,” Dr. Kyzar said. “This work has the potential to discover novel neuroimmune mechanisms contributing to neuropsychiatric disease and offer possible pathways for the discovery of new treatments.”
The authors reported financial relationships with Allen & Company, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Public Health Company, Roche/Genentech, Sandler Foundation, and Takeda in the form of grants and personal fees. They reported funding and/or support from the Brain Research Foundation, Hanna H. Gray Fellowship, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, John A. Watson Scholar Program, Latinx Center of Excellence, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, and Shared Instrumentation grant. Dr. Kyzar reported no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Telehealth safe, effective for a challenging psychiatric disorder
Telehealth is safe and effective for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and may even have an edge over in-person treatment, new research suggests.
Investigators compared BPD outcomes with therapy delivered in person and via telemedicine and found comparable reductions in depression, anxiety, and anger symptoms as well as improved overall well-being and mental health.
The results also suggest a telehealth advantage with significantly better patient attendance vs. patients treated in-person.
“We found a large effect size of treatment in both groups, as well as comparable levels of satisfaction with treatment, symptom reduction, and improved functioning, coping ability, positive mental health, and general well-being,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview.
The study was published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of Personality Disorders.
‘No other option’
Most previous research investigating telehealth has occurred in outpatient, individual treatment settings and has not examined telehealth-delivered group therapy or partial hospitalization, the authors noted.
“Until the pandemic, we were delivering care in person, but when the pandemic began, because of public safety recommendations, we knew that we could no longer continue doing so,” said Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the partial hospital program (PHP), Rhode Island Hospital.
“In switching to a telehealth platform, we were concerned about patient safety and acceptability of delivering care in that manner, especially with patients with BPD, which is associated with impulsive behavior, self-harm, and suicidal behavior, among other problems,” he said. However “we had no other option” than to utilize a telehealth delivery mode, since the alternative was to shut down the program.
The investigators were “interested in whether or not virtual treatment in an acute intensive setting, such as a PHP, would be as safe, acceptable, and effective as in-person treatment.”
The study was part of the ongoing work of the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services.
Additional safety measures
Treatment, consisting of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) treatment model – including intake assessments, individual therapy, psychiatric visits, and group therapy – was delivered by a multidisciplinary team via Zoom.
Dr. Zimmerman noted that the team implemented additional safety precautions, including having patients check in at the beginning of each day to indicate their location, not seeing patients who were out of state, and making sure all patients had a contact person.
In addition, beyond the therapist leading the group, another therapist was always available, overseeing groups and meeting one-on-one (virtually) with participants if they had been triggered by the group process and were highly distressed.
Patients were asked to complete a number of questionnaires, including the Clinically Useful Patient Satisfaction Scale (CUPSS) at the end of their intake session. The primary outcome measure was the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ-M).
The study was conducted between May 1 and Dec. 15 of 2020 and included 64 patients with BPD who were treated for the first time in the Rhode Island Hospital PHP. They were compared to 117 patients who participated in the in-person program during the same months in 2019.
Participant characteristics were similar – for example, three-quarters of the participants in both groups were female, and the mean age was 34 years.
‘Sea change’
Most patients in the telehealth and in-person groups reported being “very” or “extremely” satisfied with the initial evaluation (90% vs. 85.3%, c2 = 0.74) and were hopeful that they would get better (85.8% vs. 82.1%, c2 = 0.45).
(c2 = 4.62), and “under both telehealth and in-person treatment conditions, the patients significantly improved from admission to discharge on each of the RDQ-M subscales, with large effect sizes found for most of the subscales,” the authors reported.
There were significant differences between the groups in the average number of days of attendance and number of days missed.
A nonsignificantly higher proportion of patients completed the telehealth program, vs. the in-person program (68.8% vs. 59%, c2 = 1.69).
In both programs, transfer to inpatient care and dissatisfaction-related withdrawal from the program were low (both < 2%). Notably, no patients attempted or completed suicide during treatment.
Virtual treatment is more convenient than in-person treatment, Dr. Zimmerman noted. “Some patients – generally those with medical or transportation issues – told us they otherwise would not have been able to participate [in the program] if treatment had been in person.”
He added, “My prediction is that 5 years from now, two-thirds to three-quarters of outpatient visits will be virtual because that is what the patients prefer – and although there will certainly be individuals who prefer in-person care, I think we’ve witnessed a sea change in how behavioral health care will be delivered.”
‘Game changer’
In an interview, Monica Carsky, PhD, clinical assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry and a senior fellow at the Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said the study has “a lot of valuable detail about how to set up a virtual PHP, which could guide any group wanting to try this.”
Dr. Carsky, who was not involved with the study, called it “a very important contribution to the research literature on efficacious treatment of BPD,” although it is not a randomized controlled trial.
“Adding more individual attention to the virtual group (e.g., having a co-host in the groups) seems as though it may be an important factor in dealing with the limitations of virtual treatment,” she noted.
However, she continued, “a limitation is that outcome assessment relied on self-administered questionnaires and did not include clinician rating scales, so the response may have been subject to the effects of social desirability bias.”
Donald W. Black, MD, associate chief of staff for mental health at the Iowa City Veterans Administration Hospital, said in an interview that the pandemic has been a “game changer, as we have had to quickly adapt mental health programs to a virtual format.
“For the most part, they have been remarkably successful for a variety of conditions, and Zimmerman and colleagues now show this for BPD families,” said Dr. Black, who was not associated with the research.
No study funding was listed. The study authors, Dr. Carsky, and Dr. Black have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telehealth is safe and effective for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and may even have an edge over in-person treatment, new research suggests.
Investigators compared BPD outcomes with therapy delivered in person and via telemedicine and found comparable reductions in depression, anxiety, and anger symptoms as well as improved overall well-being and mental health.
The results also suggest a telehealth advantage with significantly better patient attendance vs. patients treated in-person.
“We found a large effect size of treatment in both groups, as well as comparable levels of satisfaction with treatment, symptom reduction, and improved functioning, coping ability, positive mental health, and general well-being,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview.
The study was published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of Personality Disorders.
‘No other option’
Most previous research investigating telehealth has occurred in outpatient, individual treatment settings and has not examined telehealth-delivered group therapy or partial hospitalization, the authors noted.
“Until the pandemic, we were delivering care in person, but when the pandemic began, because of public safety recommendations, we knew that we could no longer continue doing so,” said Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the partial hospital program (PHP), Rhode Island Hospital.
“In switching to a telehealth platform, we were concerned about patient safety and acceptability of delivering care in that manner, especially with patients with BPD, which is associated with impulsive behavior, self-harm, and suicidal behavior, among other problems,” he said. However “we had no other option” than to utilize a telehealth delivery mode, since the alternative was to shut down the program.
The investigators were “interested in whether or not virtual treatment in an acute intensive setting, such as a PHP, would be as safe, acceptable, and effective as in-person treatment.”
The study was part of the ongoing work of the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services.
Additional safety measures
Treatment, consisting of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) treatment model – including intake assessments, individual therapy, psychiatric visits, and group therapy – was delivered by a multidisciplinary team via Zoom.
Dr. Zimmerman noted that the team implemented additional safety precautions, including having patients check in at the beginning of each day to indicate their location, not seeing patients who were out of state, and making sure all patients had a contact person.
In addition, beyond the therapist leading the group, another therapist was always available, overseeing groups and meeting one-on-one (virtually) with participants if they had been triggered by the group process and were highly distressed.
Patients were asked to complete a number of questionnaires, including the Clinically Useful Patient Satisfaction Scale (CUPSS) at the end of their intake session. The primary outcome measure was the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ-M).
The study was conducted between May 1 and Dec. 15 of 2020 and included 64 patients with BPD who were treated for the first time in the Rhode Island Hospital PHP. They were compared to 117 patients who participated in the in-person program during the same months in 2019.
Participant characteristics were similar – for example, three-quarters of the participants in both groups were female, and the mean age was 34 years.
‘Sea change’
Most patients in the telehealth and in-person groups reported being “very” or “extremely” satisfied with the initial evaluation (90% vs. 85.3%, c2 = 0.74) and were hopeful that they would get better (85.8% vs. 82.1%, c2 = 0.45).
(c2 = 4.62), and “under both telehealth and in-person treatment conditions, the patients significantly improved from admission to discharge on each of the RDQ-M subscales, with large effect sizes found for most of the subscales,” the authors reported.
There were significant differences between the groups in the average number of days of attendance and number of days missed.
A nonsignificantly higher proportion of patients completed the telehealth program, vs. the in-person program (68.8% vs. 59%, c2 = 1.69).
In both programs, transfer to inpatient care and dissatisfaction-related withdrawal from the program were low (both < 2%). Notably, no patients attempted or completed suicide during treatment.
Virtual treatment is more convenient than in-person treatment, Dr. Zimmerman noted. “Some patients – generally those with medical or transportation issues – told us they otherwise would not have been able to participate [in the program] if treatment had been in person.”
He added, “My prediction is that 5 years from now, two-thirds to three-quarters of outpatient visits will be virtual because that is what the patients prefer – and although there will certainly be individuals who prefer in-person care, I think we’ve witnessed a sea change in how behavioral health care will be delivered.”
‘Game changer’
In an interview, Monica Carsky, PhD, clinical assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry and a senior fellow at the Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said the study has “a lot of valuable detail about how to set up a virtual PHP, which could guide any group wanting to try this.”
Dr. Carsky, who was not involved with the study, called it “a very important contribution to the research literature on efficacious treatment of BPD,” although it is not a randomized controlled trial.
“Adding more individual attention to the virtual group (e.g., having a co-host in the groups) seems as though it may be an important factor in dealing with the limitations of virtual treatment,” she noted.
However, she continued, “a limitation is that outcome assessment relied on self-administered questionnaires and did not include clinician rating scales, so the response may have been subject to the effects of social desirability bias.”
Donald W. Black, MD, associate chief of staff for mental health at the Iowa City Veterans Administration Hospital, said in an interview that the pandemic has been a “game changer, as we have had to quickly adapt mental health programs to a virtual format.
“For the most part, they have been remarkably successful for a variety of conditions, and Zimmerman and colleagues now show this for BPD families,” said Dr. Black, who was not associated with the research.
No study funding was listed. The study authors, Dr. Carsky, and Dr. Black have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telehealth is safe and effective for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and may even have an edge over in-person treatment, new research suggests.
Investigators compared BPD outcomes with therapy delivered in person and via telemedicine and found comparable reductions in depression, anxiety, and anger symptoms as well as improved overall well-being and mental health.
The results also suggest a telehealth advantage with significantly better patient attendance vs. patients treated in-person.
“We found a large effect size of treatment in both groups, as well as comparable levels of satisfaction with treatment, symptom reduction, and improved functioning, coping ability, positive mental health, and general well-being,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview.
The study was published online Nov. 8 in the Journal of Personality Disorders.
‘No other option’
Most previous research investigating telehealth has occurred in outpatient, individual treatment settings and has not examined telehealth-delivered group therapy or partial hospitalization, the authors noted.
“Until the pandemic, we were delivering care in person, but when the pandemic began, because of public safety recommendations, we knew that we could no longer continue doing so,” said Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the partial hospital program (PHP), Rhode Island Hospital.
“In switching to a telehealth platform, we were concerned about patient safety and acceptability of delivering care in that manner, especially with patients with BPD, which is associated with impulsive behavior, self-harm, and suicidal behavior, among other problems,” he said. However “we had no other option” than to utilize a telehealth delivery mode, since the alternative was to shut down the program.
The investigators were “interested in whether or not virtual treatment in an acute intensive setting, such as a PHP, would be as safe, acceptable, and effective as in-person treatment.”
The study was part of the ongoing work of the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services.
Additional safety measures
Treatment, consisting of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) treatment model – including intake assessments, individual therapy, psychiatric visits, and group therapy – was delivered by a multidisciplinary team via Zoom.
Dr. Zimmerman noted that the team implemented additional safety precautions, including having patients check in at the beginning of each day to indicate their location, not seeing patients who were out of state, and making sure all patients had a contact person.
In addition, beyond the therapist leading the group, another therapist was always available, overseeing groups and meeting one-on-one (virtually) with participants if they had been triggered by the group process and were highly distressed.
Patients were asked to complete a number of questionnaires, including the Clinically Useful Patient Satisfaction Scale (CUPSS) at the end of their intake session. The primary outcome measure was the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ-M).
The study was conducted between May 1 and Dec. 15 of 2020 and included 64 patients with BPD who were treated for the first time in the Rhode Island Hospital PHP. They were compared to 117 patients who participated in the in-person program during the same months in 2019.
Participant characteristics were similar – for example, three-quarters of the participants in both groups were female, and the mean age was 34 years.
‘Sea change’
Most patients in the telehealth and in-person groups reported being “very” or “extremely” satisfied with the initial evaluation (90% vs. 85.3%, c2 = 0.74) and were hopeful that they would get better (85.8% vs. 82.1%, c2 = 0.45).
(c2 = 4.62), and “under both telehealth and in-person treatment conditions, the patients significantly improved from admission to discharge on each of the RDQ-M subscales, with large effect sizes found for most of the subscales,” the authors reported.
There were significant differences between the groups in the average number of days of attendance and number of days missed.
A nonsignificantly higher proportion of patients completed the telehealth program, vs. the in-person program (68.8% vs. 59%, c2 = 1.69).
In both programs, transfer to inpatient care and dissatisfaction-related withdrawal from the program were low (both < 2%). Notably, no patients attempted or completed suicide during treatment.
Virtual treatment is more convenient than in-person treatment, Dr. Zimmerman noted. “Some patients – generally those with medical or transportation issues – told us they otherwise would not have been able to participate [in the program] if treatment had been in person.”
He added, “My prediction is that 5 years from now, two-thirds to three-quarters of outpatient visits will be virtual because that is what the patients prefer – and although there will certainly be individuals who prefer in-person care, I think we’ve witnessed a sea change in how behavioral health care will be delivered.”
‘Game changer’
In an interview, Monica Carsky, PhD, clinical assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry and a senior fellow at the Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said the study has “a lot of valuable detail about how to set up a virtual PHP, which could guide any group wanting to try this.”
Dr. Carsky, who was not involved with the study, called it “a very important contribution to the research literature on efficacious treatment of BPD,” although it is not a randomized controlled trial.
“Adding more individual attention to the virtual group (e.g., having a co-host in the groups) seems as though it may be an important factor in dealing with the limitations of virtual treatment,” she noted.
However, she continued, “a limitation is that outcome assessment relied on self-administered questionnaires and did not include clinician rating scales, so the response may have been subject to the effects of social desirability bias.”
Donald W. Black, MD, associate chief of staff for mental health at the Iowa City Veterans Administration Hospital, said in an interview that the pandemic has been a “game changer, as we have had to quickly adapt mental health programs to a virtual format.
“For the most part, they have been remarkably successful for a variety of conditions, and Zimmerman and colleagues now show this for BPD families,” said Dr. Black, who was not associated with the research.
No study funding was listed. The study authors, Dr. Carsky, and Dr. Black have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
Alcohol-related liver disease severity increased during COVID-19 pandemic
LAS VEGAS – Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-related liver disease has increased in severity, a finding that is likely related to higher consumption of alcohol and reduced care. The difference was notable in higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease–sodium (MELD-Na) scores, more signs of hepatic decompensation, and higher mortality rates.
“Alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased morbidity and mortality, specifically in patients that already had underlying liver disease. The importance of alcohol cessation, counseling, and close physician monitoring is emphasized, given continued or relapsed alcohol consumption can significantly affect quality of life, life expectancy, and liver transplantation candidacy,” research team member Lindsay A. Sobotka, DO, said in an interview. Dr. Sobotka is an assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
The research was presented by Ayushi Jain, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Jain is a resident at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
Dr. Jain noted that alcohol sales have gone up during the pandemic, with monthly sales up 14%-44% between February and September 2020, compared with the same months in previous years.
Decompensation rates rose
The researchers analyzed data from patients with alcoholic cirrhosis or alcoholic hepatitis who were seen at the Ohio State University Medical Center between March and August 2019, and between March and August 2020.
During the pandemic, the number of hospital admissions nearly doubled among alcoholic hepatitis patients (86 to 162), but declined slightly among patients with alcoholic cirrhosis (613 to 528), possibly because of efforts to manage decompensation and avoid hospitalizations during the pandemic, according to Dr. Jain. In total, 4 of 162 patients with alcoholic hepatitis and 14 of 528 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had COVID-19 at the time of admission.
Higher mortality rates were seen during the pandemic, although this was only significant for alcoholic cirrhosis: 14.8% versus 7% for alcoholic hepatitis (P = .06) and 13.5% versus 7.4% for alcoholic cirrhosis (P = .001).
Among those with alcoholic hepatitis, there was no significant change in median Maddrey’s Discriminant Function during the pandemic (P = .51), but the researchers noted a significant decrease in steroid use, from 27 patients to 23 (P = .001). “This may be due to a statistically significant increase in GI bleeds and renal dysfunction that we noted during the pandemic,” said Dr. Jain.
Hepatic decompensation and critical care needs increased among patients admitted with alcoholic hepatitis, including hepatic encephalopathy (P = .037), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = .01), a need for increased oxygen (P = .024), vasopressor support (P = .005), and initiation of hemodialysis (P = .007). The median highest MELD-Na score during admission was also higher during the pandemic (24 vs. 23, P = .04).
Patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had greater decompensation as measured by ascites (P = .01), therapeutic paracentesis (P = .04), titration of diuretics (P = .005), acute kidney injury (P = .005), hepatorenal syndrome (P = .002), and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (P = .04). They also had greater need for vasopressor support (9% to 14%; P = .006), were more likely to initiate hemodialysis (7% to 11%; P = .015), and had greater mortality (7% to 14%; P = .001).
In all, 212 patients reported increased alcohol intake, 161 reported little change over the past year, and 253 said they were abstinent. MELD-Na scores were highest in the increased group (27), compared with the unchanged group (24) and abstinent group (23) (P = .001).
More robust support needed
“This highlights that the increase in alcohol use seems to be associated with higher rates of more severe alcoholic hepatitis, and we are going to need to all be aware of and intervene in these individuals, and try to not only make health care more accessible, but help those with alcohol use disorder to reengage in some support systems [and] harm-reduction measures, to try to reduce the number of these episodes of admissions with severe alcoholic hepatitis,” said Paul Kwo, MD, who comoderated the session. Dr. Kwo is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Dr. Kwo suggested that the pandemic has presented dual challenges to patients with alcohol-related liver disease. One is that hospitals have filled up because of an influx of COVID-19 cases, which makes it hard for them to compete for limited resources. The other is that lockdowns and social interruptions may have interfered with the support systems that normally help them to keep sober and maintain health care. “The pandemic really disrupted everybody’s ecosystem substantially, and some of these individuals, as their ecosystems crumble, they don’t have other resources to engage in care, and then they present with far more advanced comorbidities than we might have seen prior to the pandemic,” said Dr. Kwo.
The findings underscore at least one lesson that can be drawn from the pandemic. “We now know that we have to develop more robust systems to provide support for all of these individuals,” said Dr. Kwo.
Comoderator Patricia D. Jones, MD, agreed, and expressed optimism. “We were forced develop more remote or virtual networks, so I think there are a lot of people that are taking advantage maybe of virtual [Alcoholics Anonymous], and that wasn’t something that they necessarily did [before the pandemic]. And so at least we’ve developed some parallel systems that hopefully people will benefit from,” said Dr. Jones, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami.
She suggested that physicians should make inquiries about patients with alcohol-related liver disease and their social situations, and might consider trying to connect them to a social worker if called for. “I think that really speaking to the person about where they are would be beneficial,” said Dr. Jones.
Dr. Sobotka, Dr. Jain, Dr. Kwo, and Dr. Jones have no relevant financial disclosures.
LAS VEGAS – Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-related liver disease has increased in severity, a finding that is likely related to higher consumption of alcohol and reduced care. The difference was notable in higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease–sodium (MELD-Na) scores, more signs of hepatic decompensation, and higher mortality rates.
“Alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased morbidity and mortality, specifically in patients that already had underlying liver disease. The importance of alcohol cessation, counseling, and close physician monitoring is emphasized, given continued or relapsed alcohol consumption can significantly affect quality of life, life expectancy, and liver transplantation candidacy,” research team member Lindsay A. Sobotka, DO, said in an interview. Dr. Sobotka is an assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
The research was presented by Ayushi Jain, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Jain is a resident at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
Dr. Jain noted that alcohol sales have gone up during the pandemic, with monthly sales up 14%-44% between February and September 2020, compared with the same months in previous years.
Decompensation rates rose
The researchers analyzed data from patients with alcoholic cirrhosis or alcoholic hepatitis who were seen at the Ohio State University Medical Center between March and August 2019, and between March and August 2020.
During the pandemic, the number of hospital admissions nearly doubled among alcoholic hepatitis patients (86 to 162), but declined slightly among patients with alcoholic cirrhosis (613 to 528), possibly because of efforts to manage decompensation and avoid hospitalizations during the pandemic, according to Dr. Jain. In total, 4 of 162 patients with alcoholic hepatitis and 14 of 528 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had COVID-19 at the time of admission.
Higher mortality rates were seen during the pandemic, although this was only significant for alcoholic cirrhosis: 14.8% versus 7% for alcoholic hepatitis (P = .06) and 13.5% versus 7.4% for alcoholic cirrhosis (P = .001).
Among those with alcoholic hepatitis, there was no significant change in median Maddrey’s Discriminant Function during the pandemic (P = .51), but the researchers noted a significant decrease in steroid use, from 27 patients to 23 (P = .001). “This may be due to a statistically significant increase in GI bleeds and renal dysfunction that we noted during the pandemic,” said Dr. Jain.
Hepatic decompensation and critical care needs increased among patients admitted with alcoholic hepatitis, including hepatic encephalopathy (P = .037), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = .01), a need for increased oxygen (P = .024), vasopressor support (P = .005), and initiation of hemodialysis (P = .007). The median highest MELD-Na score during admission was also higher during the pandemic (24 vs. 23, P = .04).
Patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had greater decompensation as measured by ascites (P = .01), therapeutic paracentesis (P = .04), titration of diuretics (P = .005), acute kidney injury (P = .005), hepatorenal syndrome (P = .002), and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (P = .04). They also had greater need for vasopressor support (9% to 14%; P = .006), were more likely to initiate hemodialysis (7% to 11%; P = .015), and had greater mortality (7% to 14%; P = .001).
In all, 212 patients reported increased alcohol intake, 161 reported little change over the past year, and 253 said they were abstinent. MELD-Na scores were highest in the increased group (27), compared with the unchanged group (24) and abstinent group (23) (P = .001).
More robust support needed
“This highlights that the increase in alcohol use seems to be associated with higher rates of more severe alcoholic hepatitis, and we are going to need to all be aware of and intervene in these individuals, and try to not only make health care more accessible, but help those with alcohol use disorder to reengage in some support systems [and] harm-reduction measures, to try to reduce the number of these episodes of admissions with severe alcoholic hepatitis,” said Paul Kwo, MD, who comoderated the session. Dr. Kwo is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Dr. Kwo suggested that the pandemic has presented dual challenges to patients with alcohol-related liver disease. One is that hospitals have filled up because of an influx of COVID-19 cases, which makes it hard for them to compete for limited resources. The other is that lockdowns and social interruptions may have interfered with the support systems that normally help them to keep sober and maintain health care. “The pandemic really disrupted everybody’s ecosystem substantially, and some of these individuals, as their ecosystems crumble, they don’t have other resources to engage in care, and then they present with far more advanced comorbidities than we might have seen prior to the pandemic,” said Dr. Kwo.
The findings underscore at least one lesson that can be drawn from the pandemic. “We now know that we have to develop more robust systems to provide support for all of these individuals,” said Dr. Kwo.
Comoderator Patricia D. Jones, MD, agreed, and expressed optimism. “We were forced develop more remote or virtual networks, so I think there are a lot of people that are taking advantage maybe of virtual [Alcoholics Anonymous], and that wasn’t something that they necessarily did [before the pandemic]. And so at least we’ve developed some parallel systems that hopefully people will benefit from,” said Dr. Jones, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami.
She suggested that physicians should make inquiries about patients with alcohol-related liver disease and their social situations, and might consider trying to connect them to a social worker if called for. “I think that really speaking to the person about where they are would be beneficial,” said Dr. Jones.
Dr. Sobotka, Dr. Jain, Dr. Kwo, and Dr. Jones have no relevant financial disclosures.
LAS VEGAS – Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-related liver disease has increased in severity, a finding that is likely related to higher consumption of alcohol and reduced care. The difference was notable in higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease–sodium (MELD-Na) scores, more signs of hepatic decompensation, and higher mortality rates.
“Alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased morbidity and mortality, specifically in patients that already had underlying liver disease. The importance of alcohol cessation, counseling, and close physician monitoring is emphasized, given continued or relapsed alcohol consumption can significantly affect quality of life, life expectancy, and liver transplantation candidacy,” research team member Lindsay A. Sobotka, DO, said in an interview. Dr. Sobotka is an assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
The research was presented by Ayushi Jain, MD, at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Jain is a resident at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
Dr. Jain noted that alcohol sales have gone up during the pandemic, with monthly sales up 14%-44% between February and September 2020, compared with the same months in previous years.
Decompensation rates rose
The researchers analyzed data from patients with alcoholic cirrhosis or alcoholic hepatitis who were seen at the Ohio State University Medical Center between March and August 2019, and between March and August 2020.
During the pandemic, the number of hospital admissions nearly doubled among alcoholic hepatitis patients (86 to 162), but declined slightly among patients with alcoholic cirrhosis (613 to 528), possibly because of efforts to manage decompensation and avoid hospitalizations during the pandemic, according to Dr. Jain. In total, 4 of 162 patients with alcoholic hepatitis and 14 of 528 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had COVID-19 at the time of admission.
Higher mortality rates were seen during the pandemic, although this was only significant for alcoholic cirrhosis: 14.8% versus 7% for alcoholic hepatitis (P = .06) and 13.5% versus 7.4% for alcoholic cirrhosis (P = .001).
Among those with alcoholic hepatitis, there was no significant change in median Maddrey’s Discriminant Function during the pandemic (P = .51), but the researchers noted a significant decrease in steroid use, from 27 patients to 23 (P = .001). “This may be due to a statistically significant increase in GI bleeds and renal dysfunction that we noted during the pandemic,” said Dr. Jain.
Hepatic decompensation and critical care needs increased among patients admitted with alcoholic hepatitis, including hepatic encephalopathy (P = .037), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = .01), a need for increased oxygen (P = .024), vasopressor support (P = .005), and initiation of hemodialysis (P = .007). The median highest MELD-Na score during admission was also higher during the pandemic (24 vs. 23, P = .04).
Patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had greater decompensation as measured by ascites (P = .01), therapeutic paracentesis (P = .04), titration of diuretics (P = .005), acute kidney injury (P = .005), hepatorenal syndrome (P = .002), and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (P = .04). They also had greater need for vasopressor support (9% to 14%; P = .006), were more likely to initiate hemodialysis (7% to 11%; P = .015), and had greater mortality (7% to 14%; P = .001).
In all, 212 patients reported increased alcohol intake, 161 reported little change over the past year, and 253 said they were abstinent. MELD-Na scores were highest in the increased group (27), compared with the unchanged group (24) and abstinent group (23) (P = .001).
More robust support needed
“This highlights that the increase in alcohol use seems to be associated with higher rates of more severe alcoholic hepatitis, and we are going to need to all be aware of and intervene in these individuals, and try to not only make health care more accessible, but help those with alcohol use disorder to reengage in some support systems [and] harm-reduction measures, to try to reduce the number of these episodes of admissions with severe alcoholic hepatitis,” said Paul Kwo, MD, who comoderated the session. Dr. Kwo is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Dr. Kwo suggested that the pandemic has presented dual challenges to patients with alcohol-related liver disease. One is that hospitals have filled up because of an influx of COVID-19 cases, which makes it hard for them to compete for limited resources. The other is that lockdowns and social interruptions may have interfered with the support systems that normally help them to keep sober and maintain health care. “The pandemic really disrupted everybody’s ecosystem substantially, and some of these individuals, as their ecosystems crumble, they don’t have other resources to engage in care, and then they present with far more advanced comorbidities than we might have seen prior to the pandemic,” said Dr. Kwo.
The findings underscore at least one lesson that can be drawn from the pandemic. “We now know that we have to develop more robust systems to provide support for all of these individuals,” said Dr. Kwo.
Comoderator Patricia D. Jones, MD, agreed, and expressed optimism. “We were forced develop more remote or virtual networks, so I think there are a lot of people that are taking advantage maybe of virtual [Alcoholics Anonymous], and that wasn’t something that they necessarily did [before the pandemic]. And so at least we’ve developed some parallel systems that hopefully people will benefit from,” said Dr. Jones, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami.
She suggested that physicians should make inquiries about patients with alcohol-related liver disease and their social situations, and might consider trying to connect them to a social worker if called for. “I think that really speaking to the person about where they are would be beneficial,” said Dr. Jones.
Dr. Sobotka, Dr. Jain, Dr. Kwo, and Dr. Jones have no relevant financial disclosures.
AT ACG 2021
mRNA COVID vaccine response found mostly robust in RA, SLE patients
Immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases who received the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine series had a frequency of adverse events similar to the general population albeit with a somewhat reduced, but still significant, antibody response with no severe vaccine-related disease flares, results of a prospective, nonrandomized open-label comparative trial in Canada demonstrated.
At the same time, patients with RA who were taking rituximab and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were taking mycophenolate mofetil seemed to have reduced humoral responses after receiving the vaccine, said Ines Colmegna, MD, reporting results of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Disease (COVIAAD) study as a late-breaking poster abstract at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Colmegna is an associate professor of rheumatology in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal.
“The frequency of adverse events, specifically the reactogenicity in people with comorbid conditions regardless of their diagnosis, was similar to healthy controls in this study, and their frequency was similar also the initial studies in the general population,” Dr. Colmegna said.
COVIAAD prospectively enrolled 220 fully vaccinated patients, 162 with rheumatic disease (131 with RA, 23 with SLE, and 8 with other diseases) and 58 controls. Adverse events a week and a month after each dose was the primary outcome. The postvaccine presence of the IgG antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD) was the secondary outcome. Dr. Colmegna said that the study will continue evaluating participants after they get a third dose.
The Canadian trial appears to validate the ACR’s COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the fourth version of which was issued in October, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and lead of the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force. Specifically, the guidance recommends that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 B-cell–depleting agents discuss vaccine timing with their rheumatologist.
“A few things changed over time when there was a paucity of evidence for any vaccine, but as time has gone on, mostly we were more correct than we weren’t,” Dr. Curtis said of the task force’s work. “The evidence that now is in this poster with regard to systemic lupus erythematosus and mycophenolate mofetil is [that] you have impaired vaccine response. If you’re on a B-cell drug like rituximab, you really have impaired vaccine response.”
In the study, 100% of controls had immunogenicity in terms of anti-spike and anti-RBD levels after the first and second dose. The rate of immunogenicity after the first and second dose were 67% and 88% in all patients with RA, and 35% and 78% in patients with SLE who were taking mycophenolate mofetil. The subset of patients with RA on rituximab (n = 17) had rates of immunogenicity of 5.9% and 17.6%, respectively.
“Measured antibody response is not the only way in which people develop a response to a vaccine, and there are also similar responses that occur even in people who are on rituximab and have not developed antibodies,” Dr. Colmegna said. “That’s a very important message also that we need to convey to patients: The immune response really extends beyond antibody protection.”
Overall, disease activity in both patients with RA and SLE did not appreciably change from baseline within 7 days and 28 days of each vaccine dose.
The study raises important questions about the timing of the vaccine, particularly in patients on rituximab, Dr. Colmegna said in an interview. “In theory, there is no element to suggest that, if you would schedule the vaccine a month prior to the next dose of rituximab, the effect of the drug would have decreased the number of B cells, and that the possibility of developing antibodies in response to the vaccine might be better if you give rituximab a month later when the amount of the drug and the effect of the drug is maximal,” she said. The average interval between patients receiving rituximab and vaccines was 4.5 months, Dr. Colmegna said in answering a question after her presentation.
Dr. Curtis said that the effect of holding rituximab or the vaccine to boost antibodies “is somewhat yet unknown. We think it will help, but that’s not a guarantee,” he said. “We don’t have direct evidence that just because the drug impairs vaccine response, that holding that drug for a week or 2 is going to take care of the problem.”
The study does arm rheumatologists with more information for discussing COVID vaccines with vaccine-hesitant patients with autoimmune diseases, Dr. Curtis said.
“It gives them evidence that for most of our immunomodulatory drugs the vaccine works pretty well,” he said. “The poster provides evidence that, compared to healthy controls, the vaccine doesn’t work quite as well in some patients, but for most people it actually did work pretty well. That reinforces the message: Go get vaccinated because [you] will mount [an immune] response, even, if that response isn’t quite as brisk as it is in healthy people.”
Dr. Colmegna and Dr. Curtis have no relevant relationships to disclose. The study received funding from Health and Social Services Quebec.
Immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases who received the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine series had a frequency of adverse events similar to the general population albeit with a somewhat reduced, but still significant, antibody response with no severe vaccine-related disease flares, results of a prospective, nonrandomized open-label comparative trial in Canada demonstrated.
At the same time, patients with RA who were taking rituximab and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were taking mycophenolate mofetil seemed to have reduced humoral responses after receiving the vaccine, said Ines Colmegna, MD, reporting results of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Disease (COVIAAD) study as a late-breaking poster abstract at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Colmegna is an associate professor of rheumatology in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal.
“The frequency of adverse events, specifically the reactogenicity in people with comorbid conditions regardless of their diagnosis, was similar to healthy controls in this study, and their frequency was similar also the initial studies in the general population,” Dr. Colmegna said.
COVIAAD prospectively enrolled 220 fully vaccinated patients, 162 with rheumatic disease (131 with RA, 23 with SLE, and 8 with other diseases) and 58 controls. Adverse events a week and a month after each dose was the primary outcome. The postvaccine presence of the IgG antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD) was the secondary outcome. Dr. Colmegna said that the study will continue evaluating participants after they get a third dose.
The Canadian trial appears to validate the ACR’s COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the fourth version of which was issued in October, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and lead of the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force. Specifically, the guidance recommends that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 B-cell–depleting agents discuss vaccine timing with their rheumatologist.
“A few things changed over time when there was a paucity of evidence for any vaccine, but as time has gone on, mostly we were more correct than we weren’t,” Dr. Curtis said of the task force’s work. “The evidence that now is in this poster with regard to systemic lupus erythematosus and mycophenolate mofetil is [that] you have impaired vaccine response. If you’re on a B-cell drug like rituximab, you really have impaired vaccine response.”
In the study, 100% of controls had immunogenicity in terms of anti-spike and anti-RBD levels after the first and second dose. The rate of immunogenicity after the first and second dose were 67% and 88% in all patients with RA, and 35% and 78% in patients with SLE who were taking mycophenolate mofetil. The subset of patients with RA on rituximab (n = 17) had rates of immunogenicity of 5.9% and 17.6%, respectively.
“Measured antibody response is not the only way in which people develop a response to a vaccine, and there are also similar responses that occur even in people who are on rituximab and have not developed antibodies,” Dr. Colmegna said. “That’s a very important message also that we need to convey to patients: The immune response really extends beyond antibody protection.”
Overall, disease activity in both patients with RA and SLE did not appreciably change from baseline within 7 days and 28 days of each vaccine dose.
The study raises important questions about the timing of the vaccine, particularly in patients on rituximab, Dr. Colmegna said in an interview. “In theory, there is no element to suggest that, if you would schedule the vaccine a month prior to the next dose of rituximab, the effect of the drug would have decreased the number of B cells, and that the possibility of developing antibodies in response to the vaccine might be better if you give rituximab a month later when the amount of the drug and the effect of the drug is maximal,” she said. The average interval between patients receiving rituximab and vaccines was 4.5 months, Dr. Colmegna said in answering a question after her presentation.
Dr. Curtis said that the effect of holding rituximab or the vaccine to boost antibodies “is somewhat yet unknown. We think it will help, but that’s not a guarantee,” he said. “We don’t have direct evidence that just because the drug impairs vaccine response, that holding that drug for a week or 2 is going to take care of the problem.”
The study does arm rheumatologists with more information for discussing COVID vaccines with vaccine-hesitant patients with autoimmune diseases, Dr. Curtis said.
“It gives them evidence that for most of our immunomodulatory drugs the vaccine works pretty well,” he said. “The poster provides evidence that, compared to healthy controls, the vaccine doesn’t work quite as well in some patients, but for most people it actually did work pretty well. That reinforces the message: Go get vaccinated because [you] will mount [an immune] response, even, if that response isn’t quite as brisk as it is in healthy people.”
Dr. Colmegna and Dr. Curtis have no relevant relationships to disclose. The study received funding from Health and Social Services Quebec.
Immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases who received the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine series had a frequency of adverse events similar to the general population albeit with a somewhat reduced, but still significant, antibody response with no severe vaccine-related disease flares, results of a prospective, nonrandomized open-label comparative trial in Canada demonstrated.
At the same time, patients with RA who were taking rituximab and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were taking mycophenolate mofetil seemed to have reduced humoral responses after receiving the vaccine, said Ines Colmegna, MD, reporting results of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Disease (COVIAAD) study as a late-breaking poster abstract at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Colmegna is an associate professor of rheumatology in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal.
“The frequency of adverse events, specifically the reactogenicity in people with comorbid conditions regardless of their diagnosis, was similar to healthy controls in this study, and their frequency was similar also the initial studies in the general population,” Dr. Colmegna said.
COVIAAD prospectively enrolled 220 fully vaccinated patients, 162 with rheumatic disease (131 with RA, 23 with SLE, and 8 with other diseases) and 58 controls. Adverse events a week and a month after each dose was the primary outcome. The postvaccine presence of the IgG antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD) was the secondary outcome. Dr. Colmegna said that the study will continue evaluating participants after they get a third dose.
The Canadian trial appears to validate the ACR’s COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the fourth version of which was issued in October, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and lead of the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force. Specifically, the guidance recommends that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 B-cell–depleting agents discuss vaccine timing with their rheumatologist.
“A few things changed over time when there was a paucity of evidence for any vaccine, but as time has gone on, mostly we were more correct than we weren’t,” Dr. Curtis said of the task force’s work. “The evidence that now is in this poster with regard to systemic lupus erythematosus and mycophenolate mofetil is [that] you have impaired vaccine response. If you’re on a B-cell drug like rituximab, you really have impaired vaccine response.”
In the study, 100% of controls had immunogenicity in terms of anti-spike and anti-RBD levels after the first and second dose. The rate of immunogenicity after the first and second dose were 67% and 88% in all patients with RA, and 35% and 78% in patients with SLE who were taking mycophenolate mofetil. The subset of patients with RA on rituximab (n = 17) had rates of immunogenicity of 5.9% and 17.6%, respectively.
“Measured antibody response is not the only way in which people develop a response to a vaccine, and there are also similar responses that occur even in people who are on rituximab and have not developed antibodies,” Dr. Colmegna said. “That’s a very important message also that we need to convey to patients: The immune response really extends beyond antibody protection.”
Overall, disease activity in both patients with RA and SLE did not appreciably change from baseline within 7 days and 28 days of each vaccine dose.
The study raises important questions about the timing of the vaccine, particularly in patients on rituximab, Dr. Colmegna said in an interview. “In theory, there is no element to suggest that, if you would schedule the vaccine a month prior to the next dose of rituximab, the effect of the drug would have decreased the number of B cells, and that the possibility of developing antibodies in response to the vaccine might be better if you give rituximab a month later when the amount of the drug and the effect of the drug is maximal,” she said. The average interval between patients receiving rituximab and vaccines was 4.5 months, Dr. Colmegna said in answering a question after her presentation.
Dr. Curtis said that the effect of holding rituximab or the vaccine to boost antibodies “is somewhat yet unknown. We think it will help, but that’s not a guarantee,” he said. “We don’t have direct evidence that just because the drug impairs vaccine response, that holding that drug for a week or 2 is going to take care of the problem.”
The study does arm rheumatologists with more information for discussing COVID vaccines with vaccine-hesitant patients with autoimmune diseases, Dr. Curtis said.
“It gives them evidence that for most of our immunomodulatory drugs the vaccine works pretty well,” he said. “The poster provides evidence that, compared to healthy controls, the vaccine doesn’t work quite as well in some patients, but for most people it actually did work pretty well. That reinforces the message: Go get vaccinated because [you] will mount [an immune] response, even, if that response isn’t quite as brisk as it is in healthy people.”
Dr. Colmegna and Dr. Curtis have no relevant relationships to disclose. The study received funding from Health and Social Services Quebec.
FROM ACR 2021
Infected, vaccinated, or both: How protected am I from COVID-19?
As the United States rounds out its second year of the pandemic, many people are trying to figure out just how vulnerable they may be to COVID-19 infection, and whether it’s finally safe to fully return to all the activities they miss.
On an individual basis, the degree and durability of the immunity a person gets after vaccination versus an infection is not an easy question to answer. But it’s one that science is hotly pursing.
“This virus is teaching us a lot about immunology,” says Gregory Poland, MD, who studies how the body responds to vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Dr. Poland says this moment in science reminds him of a quote attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson: “We learn about geology the morning after the earthquake.”
“And that’s the case here. It is and will continue to teach us a lot of immunology,” he says.
It’s vital to understand how a COVID-19 infection reshapes the body’s immune defenses so that researchers can tailor vaccines and therapies to do the same or better.
“Because, of course, it’s much more risky to get infected with the actual virus, than with the vaccine,” says Daniela Weiskopf, PhD, a researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California.
What is known so far is that how much protection you get and how long you may have it depends on several factors. Those include your age, whether you’ve had COVID-19 before and how severe your symptoms were, your vaccination status, and how long it has been since you were infected or inoculated. Your underlying health matters, too. Immune protection also depends on the virus and how much it is changing as it evolves to evade all our hard-won defenses.
In a new scientific brief, Here’s what we know so far:
Durability of immunity
The agency’s researchers say if you’ve recovered from a COVID-19 infection or are fully vaccinated, you’re probably in good shape for at least 6 months. That’s why this is the recommended interval for people to consider getting a booster dose.
Even though the protection you get after infection and vaccination is generally strong, it’s not perfect.
Getting COVID-19 after you’ve been vaccinated or recovered is still possible. But having some immunity -- whether from infection or vaccination -- really drops the odds of this happening to you. And if you do happen to catch COVID, if your immune system has already gotten a heads up about the virus, your infection is much less likely to be one that lands you in the hospital or morgue.
According to CDC data, at the height of the Delta surge in August, fully vaccinated people were six times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection compared with unvaccinated people, and 11 times less likely to die if they did get it.
How strong is immunity after a COVID-19 Infection?
About 90% of people develop some number of protective antibodies after a COVID-19 infection, according to the CDC. But how high those levels climb appears to be all over the map. Studies show peak antibody concentrations can vary as much as 200-fold, or 2,000%.
Where you fall within that very large range will depend on your age and how sick you became from your COVID-19 infection. It also depends on whether you have an underlying health condition or take a medication that blunts immune function.
Our immune system slows down with age. Immunosenescence starts to affect a person’s health around the age of 60. But there’s no bright line for failure. People who exercise and are generally healthy will have better immune function than someone who doesn’t, no matter their age. In general, though, the older you are, the less likely you are to get a robust immune response after an infection or a vaccination. That’s why this group has been prioritized both for first vaccine doses and boosters.
Beyond age, your protection from future infection seems to depend on how ill you were with the first. Several studies have shown that blood levels of antibodies rise faster and reach a higher peak in people with more severe infections.
In general, people with cold-like symptoms who tested positive but recovered at home are better protected than people who didn’t get any symptoms. And people who were hospitalized for their infections are better protected over the long term than people with milder infections. They may have paid a steep price for that protection: Many hospitalized patients continue to have debilitating symptoms that last for months after they go home.
On average, though, protection after infection seems to be comparable to vaccination, at least for a while. Six large studies from different countries have looked into this question, and five of them have used the very sensitive real-time polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) to count people as truly being previously infected. These studies found that for 6 to 9 months after recovery, a person was 80% to 93% less likely to get COVID-19 again.
There are some caveats to mention, though. Early in the pandemic when supplies were scarce, it was hard to get tested unless you were so sick you landed in the hospital. Studies have shown that the concentration of antibodies a person makes after an infection seems to depend on how sick they got in the first place.
People who had milder infections, or who didn’t have any symptoms at all, may not develop as much protection as those who have more severe symptoms. So these studies may reflect the immunity developed by people who were pretty ill during their first infections.
One study of 25,000 health care workers, who were all tested every 2 weeks -- whether they had symptoms or not -- may offer a clearer picture. In this study, health care workers who’d previously tested positive for COVID-19 were 84% less likely to test positive for the virus again. They were 93% less likely to get an infection that made them sick, and 52% less likely to get an infection without symptoms, for at least 6 months after they recovered.
How does protection after infection compare to vaccination?
Two weeks after your final vaccine dose, protection against a COVID-19 infection is high -- around 90% for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and 66% for the one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot. Clinical trials conducted by the manufacturer have shown that a second dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine given at least 2 months after vaccination boosts protection against illness in the United States to about 94%, which is why another dose has been recommended for all Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients 2 months after their first shot.
It’s not yet known how long the COVID-19 vaccines remain protective. There’s some evidence that protection against symptomatic infections wanes a bit over time as antibody levels drop. But protection against severe illness, including hospitalization and death, has remained high so far, even without a booster.
Are antibodies different after infection compared to vaccination?
Yes. And researchers don’t yet understand what these differences mean.
It seems to come down to a question of quality versus quantity. Vaccines seem to produce higher peak antibody levels than natural infections do. But these antibodies are highly specialized, able to recognize only the parts of the virus they were designed to target.
“The mRNA vaccine directs all the immune responses to the single spike protein,” says Alice Cho, PhD, who is studying the differences in vaccine and infection-created immunity at the Rockefeller University in New York. “There’s a lot more to respond to with a virus than there is in a vaccine.”
During an infection, the immune system learns to recognize and grab onto many parts of the virus, not just its spike.
The job of remembering the various pieces and parts of a foreign invader, so that it can be quickly recognized and disarmed should it ever return, falls to memory B cells.
Memory B cells, in turn, make plasma cells that then crank out antibodies that are custom tailored to attach to their targets.
Antibody levels gradually fall over a few months’ time as the plasma cells that make them die off. But memory B cells live for extended periods. One study that was attempting to measure the lifespan of individual memory B cells in mice found that these cells probably live as long as the mouse itself. Memory B cells induced by smallpox vaccination may live at least 60 years -- virtually an entire lifetime.
Dr. Cho’s research team has found that when memory B cells are trained by the vaccine, they become one-hit wonders, cranking out copious amounts of the same kinds of antibodies over and over again.
Memory B cells trained by viral infection, however, are more versatile. They continue to evolve over several months and produce higher quality antibodies that appear to become more potent over time and can even develop activity against future variants.
Still, the researchers stress that it’s not smart to wait to get a COVID-19 infection in hopes of getting these more versatile antibodies.
“While a natural infection may induce maturation of antibodies with broader activity than a vaccine does -- a natural infection can also kill you,” says Michel Nussenzweig, MD, PhD, head of Rockefeller’s Laboratory of Molecular Immunology.
Sure, memory B cells generated by infections may be immunological Swiss Army Knives, but maybe, argues Donna Farber, PhD, an immunologist at Columbia University in New York, we really only need a single blade.
“The thing with the vaccine is that it’s really focused,” she says. “It’s not giving you all these other viral proteins. It’s only giving you the spike.”
“It may be even better than the level of neutralizing spike antibodies you’re going to get from the infection,” she says. “With a viral infection, the immune response really has a lot to do. It’s really being distracted by all these other proteins.”
“Whereas with the vaccine, it’s just saying to the immune response, ‘This is the immunity we need,’” Dr. Farber says. “‘Just generate this immunity.’ So it’s focusing the immune response in a way that’s going to guarantee that you’re going to get that protective response.”
What if you had COVID and later got vaccinated?
This is called hybrid immunity, and it’s the best of both worlds.
“You have the benefit of very deep, but narrow, immunity produced by vaccine, and very broad, but not very deep, immunity produced by infection,” Dr. Poland says. He says you’ve effectively cross-trained your immune system.
In studies of people who recovered from COVID-19 and then went on to get an mRNA vaccine, after one dose, their antibodies were as high as someone who had been fully vaccinated. After two doses, their antibody levels were about double the average levels seen in someone who’d only been vaccinated.
Studies have shown this kind of immunity has real benefits, too. A recent study by researchers at the University of Kentucky and the CDC found that people who’d gotten COVID-19 in 2020, but had not been vaccinated, were about twice as likely to be reinfected in May and June compared with those who recovered and went on to get their vaccines.
What antibody level is protective?
Scientists aren’t exactly sure how high antibody levels need to be for protection, or even which kinds of antibodies or other immune components matter most yet.
But vaccines appear to generate higher antibody levels than infections do. In a recent study published in the journal Science , Dr. Weiskopf and her colleagues at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology detail the findings of a de-escalation study, where they gave people one-quarter of the normal dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine and then collected blood samples over time to study their immune responses.
Their immune responses were scaled down with the dose.
“We saw that this has the exact same levels as natural infection,” Dr. Weiskopf says. “People who are vaccinated have much higher immune memory than people who are naturally infected,” she says.
Antibody levels are not easy to determine in the real world. Can you take a test to find out how protected you are? The answer is no, because we don’t yet know what antibody level, or even which kind of antibodies, correlate with protection.
Also, there are many different kinds of antibody tests and they all use a slightly different scale, so there’s no broadly agreed upon way to measure them yet. It’s difficult to compare levels test to test.
Weeks or months between doses? Which is best?
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested to be given 3 and 4 weeks apart, respectively. But when the vaccines were first rolling out, shortages prompted some countries to stretch the interval between doses to 4 or more months.
Researchers who have studied the immune responses of people who were inoculated on an extended dosing schedule noticed something interesting: When the interval was stretched, people had better antibody responses. In fact, their antibody responses looked like the sky-high levels people got with hybrid immunity.
Susanna Dunachie, PhD, a global research professor at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, wondered why. She’s leading a team of researchers who are doing detailed studies of the immune responses of health care workers after their vaccinations.
“We found that B cells, which are the cells that make antibodies to the viral spike protein after vaccination, carry on increasing in number between 4 and 10 weeks after vaccination,” she says.
Waiting to give the second vaccine 6 to 14 weeks seems to stimulate the immune system when all of its antibody-making factories are finally up and running.
For this reason, giving the second dose at 3 weeks, she says, might be premature.
But there’s a tradeoff involved in waiting. If there are high levels of the virus circulating in a community, you want to get people fully vaccinated as quickly as possible to maximize their protection in the shortest window of time, which is what we decided to do in the United States.
Researchers say it might be a good idea to revisit the dosing interval when it’s less risky to try it.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As the United States rounds out its second year of the pandemic, many people are trying to figure out just how vulnerable they may be to COVID-19 infection, and whether it’s finally safe to fully return to all the activities they miss.
On an individual basis, the degree and durability of the immunity a person gets after vaccination versus an infection is not an easy question to answer. But it’s one that science is hotly pursing.
“This virus is teaching us a lot about immunology,” says Gregory Poland, MD, who studies how the body responds to vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Dr. Poland says this moment in science reminds him of a quote attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson: “We learn about geology the morning after the earthquake.”
“And that’s the case here. It is and will continue to teach us a lot of immunology,” he says.
It’s vital to understand how a COVID-19 infection reshapes the body’s immune defenses so that researchers can tailor vaccines and therapies to do the same or better.
“Because, of course, it’s much more risky to get infected with the actual virus, than with the vaccine,” says Daniela Weiskopf, PhD, a researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California.
What is known so far is that how much protection you get and how long you may have it depends on several factors. Those include your age, whether you’ve had COVID-19 before and how severe your symptoms were, your vaccination status, and how long it has been since you were infected or inoculated. Your underlying health matters, too. Immune protection also depends on the virus and how much it is changing as it evolves to evade all our hard-won defenses.
In a new scientific brief, Here’s what we know so far:
Durability of immunity
The agency’s researchers say if you’ve recovered from a COVID-19 infection or are fully vaccinated, you’re probably in good shape for at least 6 months. That’s why this is the recommended interval for people to consider getting a booster dose.
Even though the protection you get after infection and vaccination is generally strong, it’s not perfect.
Getting COVID-19 after you’ve been vaccinated or recovered is still possible. But having some immunity -- whether from infection or vaccination -- really drops the odds of this happening to you. And if you do happen to catch COVID, if your immune system has already gotten a heads up about the virus, your infection is much less likely to be one that lands you in the hospital or morgue.
According to CDC data, at the height of the Delta surge in August, fully vaccinated people were six times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection compared with unvaccinated people, and 11 times less likely to die if they did get it.
How strong is immunity after a COVID-19 Infection?
About 90% of people develop some number of protective antibodies after a COVID-19 infection, according to the CDC. But how high those levels climb appears to be all over the map. Studies show peak antibody concentrations can vary as much as 200-fold, or 2,000%.
Where you fall within that very large range will depend on your age and how sick you became from your COVID-19 infection. It also depends on whether you have an underlying health condition or take a medication that blunts immune function.
Our immune system slows down with age. Immunosenescence starts to affect a person’s health around the age of 60. But there’s no bright line for failure. People who exercise and are generally healthy will have better immune function than someone who doesn’t, no matter their age. In general, though, the older you are, the less likely you are to get a robust immune response after an infection or a vaccination. That’s why this group has been prioritized both for first vaccine doses and boosters.
Beyond age, your protection from future infection seems to depend on how ill you were with the first. Several studies have shown that blood levels of antibodies rise faster and reach a higher peak in people with more severe infections.
In general, people with cold-like symptoms who tested positive but recovered at home are better protected than people who didn’t get any symptoms. And people who were hospitalized for their infections are better protected over the long term than people with milder infections. They may have paid a steep price for that protection: Many hospitalized patients continue to have debilitating symptoms that last for months after they go home.
On average, though, protection after infection seems to be comparable to vaccination, at least for a while. Six large studies from different countries have looked into this question, and five of them have used the very sensitive real-time polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) to count people as truly being previously infected. These studies found that for 6 to 9 months after recovery, a person was 80% to 93% less likely to get COVID-19 again.
There are some caveats to mention, though. Early in the pandemic when supplies were scarce, it was hard to get tested unless you were so sick you landed in the hospital. Studies have shown that the concentration of antibodies a person makes after an infection seems to depend on how sick they got in the first place.
People who had milder infections, or who didn’t have any symptoms at all, may not develop as much protection as those who have more severe symptoms. So these studies may reflect the immunity developed by people who were pretty ill during their first infections.
One study of 25,000 health care workers, who were all tested every 2 weeks -- whether they had symptoms or not -- may offer a clearer picture. In this study, health care workers who’d previously tested positive for COVID-19 were 84% less likely to test positive for the virus again. They were 93% less likely to get an infection that made them sick, and 52% less likely to get an infection without symptoms, for at least 6 months after they recovered.
How does protection after infection compare to vaccination?
Two weeks after your final vaccine dose, protection against a COVID-19 infection is high -- around 90% for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and 66% for the one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot. Clinical trials conducted by the manufacturer have shown that a second dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine given at least 2 months after vaccination boosts protection against illness in the United States to about 94%, which is why another dose has been recommended for all Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients 2 months after their first shot.
It’s not yet known how long the COVID-19 vaccines remain protective. There’s some evidence that protection against symptomatic infections wanes a bit over time as antibody levels drop. But protection against severe illness, including hospitalization and death, has remained high so far, even without a booster.
Are antibodies different after infection compared to vaccination?
Yes. And researchers don’t yet understand what these differences mean.
It seems to come down to a question of quality versus quantity. Vaccines seem to produce higher peak antibody levels than natural infections do. But these antibodies are highly specialized, able to recognize only the parts of the virus they were designed to target.
“The mRNA vaccine directs all the immune responses to the single spike protein,” says Alice Cho, PhD, who is studying the differences in vaccine and infection-created immunity at the Rockefeller University in New York. “There’s a lot more to respond to with a virus than there is in a vaccine.”
During an infection, the immune system learns to recognize and grab onto many parts of the virus, not just its spike.
The job of remembering the various pieces and parts of a foreign invader, so that it can be quickly recognized and disarmed should it ever return, falls to memory B cells.
Memory B cells, in turn, make plasma cells that then crank out antibodies that are custom tailored to attach to their targets.
Antibody levels gradually fall over a few months’ time as the plasma cells that make them die off. But memory B cells live for extended periods. One study that was attempting to measure the lifespan of individual memory B cells in mice found that these cells probably live as long as the mouse itself. Memory B cells induced by smallpox vaccination may live at least 60 years -- virtually an entire lifetime.
Dr. Cho’s research team has found that when memory B cells are trained by the vaccine, they become one-hit wonders, cranking out copious amounts of the same kinds of antibodies over and over again.
Memory B cells trained by viral infection, however, are more versatile. They continue to evolve over several months and produce higher quality antibodies that appear to become more potent over time and can even develop activity against future variants.
Still, the researchers stress that it’s not smart to wait to get a COVID-19 infection in hopes of getting these more versatile antibodies.
“While a natural infection may induce maturation of antibodies with broader activity than a vaccine does -- a natural infection can also kill you,” says Michel Nussenzweig, MD, PhD, head of Rockefeller’s Laboratory of Molecular Immunology.
Sure, memory B cells generated by infections may be immunological Swiss Army Knives, but maybe, argues Donna Farber, PhD, an immunologist at Columbia University in New York, we really only need a single blade.
“The thing with the vaccine is that it’s really focused,” she says. “It’s not giving you all these other viral proteins. It’s only giving you the spike.”
“It may be even better than the level of neutralizing spike antibodies you’re going to get from the infection,” she says. “With a viral infection, the immune response really has a lot to do. It’s really being distracted by all these other proteins.”
“Whereas with the vaccine, it’s just saying to the immune response, ‘This is the immunity we need,’” Dr. Farber says. “‘Just generate this immunity.’ So it’s focusing the immune response in a way that’s going to guarantee that you’re going to get that protective response.”
What if you had COVID and later got vaccinated?
This is called hybrid immunity, and it’s the best of both worlds.
“You have the benefit of very deep, but narrow, immunity produced by vaccine, and very broad, but not very deep, immunity produced by infection,” Dr. Poland says. He says you’ve effectively cross-trained your immune system.
In studies of people who recovered from COVID-19 and then went on to get an mRNA vaccine, after one dose, their antibodies were as high as someone who had been fully vaccinated. After two doses, their antibody levels were about double the average levels seen in someone who’d only been vaccinated.
Studies have shown this kind of immunity has real benefits, too. A recent study by researchers at the University of Kentucky and the CDC found that people who’d gotten COVID-19 in 2020, but had not been vaccinated, were about twice as likely to be reinfected in May and June compared with those who recovered and went on to get their vaccines.
What antibody level is protective?
Scientists aren’t exactly sure how high antibody levels need to be for protection, or even which kinds of antibodies or other immune components matter most yet.
But vaccines appear to generate higher antibody levels than infections do. In a recent study published in the journal Science , Dr. Weiskopf and her colleagues at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology detail the findings of a de-escalation study, where they gave people one-quarter of the normal dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine and then collected blood samples over time to study their immune responses.
Their immune responses were scaled down with the dose.
“We saw that this has the exact same levels as natural infection,” Dr. Weiskopf says. “People who are vaccinated have much higher immune memory than people who are naturally infected,” she says.
Antibody levels are not easy to determine in the real world. Can you take a test to find out how protected you are? The answer is no, because we don’t yet know what antibody level, or even which kind of antibodies, correlate with protection.
Also, there are many different kinds of antibody tests and they all use a slightly different scale, so there’s no broadly agreed upon way to measure them yet. It’s difficult to compare levels test to test.
Weeks or months between doses? Which is best?
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested to be given 3 and 4 weeks apart, respectively. But when the vaccines were first rolling out, shortages prompted some countries to stretch the interval between doses to 4 or more months.
Researchers who have studied the immune responses of people who were inoculated on an extended dosing schedule noticed something interesting: When the interval was stretched, people had better antibody responses. In fact, their antibody responses looked like the sky-high levels people got with hybrid immunity.
Susanna Dunachie, PhD, a global research professor at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, wondered why. She’s leading a team of researchers who are doing detailed studies of the immune responses of health care workers after their vaccinations.
“We found that B cells, which are the cells that make antibodies to the viral spike protein after vaccination, carry on increasing in number between 4 and 10 weeks after vaccination,” she says.
Waiting to give the second vaccine 6 to 14 weeks seems to stimulate the immune system when all of its antibody-making factories are finally up and running.
For this reason, giving the second dose at 3 weeks, she says, might be premature.
But there’s a tradeoff involved in waiting. If there are high levels of the virus circulating in a community, you want to get people fully vaccinated as quickly as possible to maximize their protection in the shortest window of time, which is what we decided to do in the United States.
Researchers say it might be a good idea to revisit the dosing interval when it’s less risky to try it.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As the United States rounds out its second year of the pandemic, many people are trying to figure out just how vulnerable they may be to COVID-19 infection, and whether it’s finally safe to fully return to all the activities they miss.
On an individual basis, the degree and durability of the immunity a person gets after vaccination versus an infection is not an easy question to answer. But it’s one that science is hotly pursing.
“This virus is teaching us a lot about immunology,” says Gregory Poland, MD, who studies how the body responds to vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Dr. Poland says this moment in science reminds him of a quote attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson: “We learn about geology the morning after the earthquake.”
“And that’s the case here. It is and will continue to teach us a lot of immunology,” he says.
It’s vital to understand how a COVID-19 infection reshapes the body’s immune defenses so that researchers can tailor vaccines and therapies to do the same or better.
“Because, of course, it’s much more risky to get infected with the actual virus, than with the vaccine,” says Daniela Weiskopf, PhD, a researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California.
What is known so far is that how much protection you get and how long you may have it depends on several factors. Those include your age, whether you’ve had COVID-19 before and how severe your symptoms were, your vaccination status, and how long it has been since you were infected or inoculated. Your underlying health matters, too. Immune protection also depends on the virus and how much it is changing as it evolves to evade all our hard-won defenses.
In a new scientific brief, Here’s what we know so far:
Durability of immunity
The agency’s researchers say if you’ve recovered from a COVID-19 infection or are fully vaccinated, you’re probably in good shape for at least 6 months. That’s why this is the recommended interval for people to consider getting a booster dose.
Even though the protection you get after infection and vaccination is generally strong, it’s not perfect.
Getting COVID-19 after you’ve been vaccinated or recovered is still possible. But having some immunity -- whether from infection or vaccination -- really drops the odds of this happening to you. And if you do happen to catch COVID, if your immune system has already gotten a heads up about the virus, your infection is much less likely to be one that lands you in the hospital or morgue.
According to CDC data, at the height of the Delta surge in August, fully vaccinated people were six times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection compared with unvaccinated people, and 11 times less likely to die if they did get it.
How strong is immunity after a COVID-19 Infection?
About 90% of people develop some number of protective antibodies after a COVID-19 infection, according to the CDC. But how high those levels climb appears to be all over the map. Studies show peak antibody concentrations can vary as much as 200-fold, or 2,000%.
Where you fall within that very large range will depend on your age and how sick you became from your COVID-19 infection. It also depends on whether you have an underlying health condition or take a medication that blunts immune function.
Our immune system slows down with age. Immunosenescence starts to affect a person’s health around the age of 60. But there’s no bright line for failure. People who exercise and are generally healthy will have better immune function than someone who doesn’t, no matter their age. In general, though, the older you are, the less likely you are to get a robust immune response after an infection or a vaccination. That’s why this group has been prioritized both for first vaccine doses and boosters.
Beyond age, your protection from future infection seems to depend on how ill you were with the first. Several studies have shown that blood levels of antibodies rise faster and reach a higher peak in people with more severe infections.
In general, people with cold-like symptoms who tested positive but recovered at home are better protected than people who didn’t get any symptoms. And people who were hospitalized for their infections are better protected over the long term than people with milder infections. They may have paid a steep price for that protection: Many hospitalized patients continue to have debilitating symptoms that last for months after they go home.
On average, though, protection after infection seems to be comparable to vaccination, at least for a while. Six large studies from different countries have looked into this question, and five of them have used the very sensitive real-time polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) to count people as truly being previously infected. These studies found that for 6 to 9 months after recovery, a person was 80% to 93% less likely to get COVID-19 again.
There are some caveats to mention, though. Early in the pandemic when supplies were scarce, it was hard to get tested unless you were so sick you landed in the hospital. Studies have shown that the concentration of antibodies a person makes after an infection seems to depend on how sick they got in the first place.
People who had milder infections, or who didn’t have any symptoms at all, may not develop as much protection as those who have more severe symptoms. So these studies may reflect the immunity developed by people who were pretty ill during their first infections.
One study of 25,000 health care workers, who were all tested every 2 weeks -- whether they had symptoms or not -- may offer a clearer picture. In this study, health care workers who’d previously tested positive for COVID-19 were 84% less likely to test positive for the virus again. They were 93% less likely to get an infection that made them sick, and 52% less likely to get an infection without symptoms, for at least 6 months after they recovered.
How does protection after infection compare to vaccination?
Two weeks after your final vaccine dose, protection against a COVID-19 infection is high -- around 90% for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and 66% for the one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot. Clinical trials conducted by the manufacturer have shown that a second dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine given at least 2 months after vaccination boosts protection against illness in the United States to about 94%, which is why another dose has been recommended for all Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients 2 months after their first shot.
It’s not yet known how long the COVID-19 vaccines remain protective. There’s some evidence that protection against symptomatic infections wanes a bit over time as antibody levels drop. But protection against severe illness, including hospitalization and death, has remained high so far, even without a booster.
Are antibodies different after infection compared to vaccination?
Yes. And researchers don’t yet understand what these differences mean.
It seems to come down to a question of quality versus quantity. Vaccines seem to produce higher peak antibody levels than natural infections do. But these antibodies are highly specialized, able to recognize only the parts of the virus they were designed to target.
“The mRNA vaccine directs all the immune responses to the single spike protein,” says Alice Cho, PhD, who is studying the differences in vaccine and infection-created immunity at the Rockefeller University in New York. “There’s a lot more to respond to with a virus than there is in a vaccine.”
During an infection, the immune system learns to recognize and grab onto many parts of the virus, not just its spike.
The job of remembering the various pieces and parts of a foreign invader, so that it can be quickly recognized and disarmed should it ever return, falls to memory B cells.
Memory B cells, in turn, make plasma cells that then crank out antibodies that are custom tailored to attach to their targets.
Antibody levels gradually fall over a few months’ time as the plasma cells that make them die off. But memory B cells live for extended periods. One study that was attempting to measure the lifespan of individual memory B cells in mice found that these cells probably live as long as the mouse itself. Memory B cells induced by smallpox vaccination may live at least 60 years -- virtually an entire lifetime.
Dr. Cho’s research team has found that when memory B cells are trained by the vaccine, they become one-hit wonders, cranking out copious amounts of the same kinds of antibodies over and over again.
Memory B cells trained by viral infection, however, are more versatile. They continue to evolve over several months and produce higher quality antibodies that appear to become more potent over time and can even develop activity against future variants.
Still, the researchers stress that it’s not smart to wait to get a COVID-19 infection in hopes of getting these more versatile antibodies.
“While a natural infection may induce maturation of antibodies with broader activity than a vaccine does -- a natural infection can also kill you,” says Michel Nussenzweig, MD, PhD, head of Rockefeller’s Laboratory of Molecular Immunology.
Sure, memory B cells generated by infections may be immunological Swiss Army Knives, but maybe, argues Donna Farber, PhD, an immunologist at Columbia University in New York, we really only need a single blade.
“The thing with the vaccine is that it’s really focused,” she says. “It’s not giving you all these other viral proteins. It’s only giving you the spike.”
“It may be even better than the level of neutralizing spike antibodies you’re going to get from the infection,” she says. “With a viral infection, the immune response really has a lot to do. It’s really being distracted by all these other proteins.”
“Whereas with the vaccine, it’s just saying to the immune response, ‘This is the immunity we need,’” Dr. Farber says. “‘Just generate this immunity.’ So it’s focusing the immune response in a way that’s going to guarantee that you’re going to get that protective response.”
What if you had COVID and later got vaccinated?
This is called hybrid immunity, and it’s the best of both worlds.
“You have the benefit of very deep, but narrow, immunity produced by vaccine, and very broad, but not very deep, immunity produced by infection,” Dr. Poland says. He says you’ve effectively cross-trained your immune system.
In studies of people who recovered from COVID-19 and then went on to get an mRNA vaccine, after one dose, their antibodies were as high as someone who had been fully vaccinated. After two doses, their antibody levels were about double the average levels seen in someone who’d only been vaccinated.
Studies have shown this kind of immunity has real benefits, too. A recent study by researchers at the University of Kentucky and the CDC found that people who’d gotten COVID-19 in 2020, but had not been vaccinated, were about twice as likely to be reinfected in May and June compared with those who recovered and went on to get their vaccines.
What antibody level is protective?
Scientists aren’t exactly sure how high antibody levels need to be for protection, or even which kinds of antibodies or other immune components matter most yet.
But vaccines appear to generate higher antibody levels than infections do. In a recent study published in the journal Science , Dr. Weiskopf and her colleagues at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology detail the findings of a de-escalation study, where they gave people one-quarter of the normal dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine and then collected blood samples over time to study their immune responses.
Their immune responses were scaled down with the dose.
“We saw that this has the exact same levels as natural infection,” Dr. Weiskopf says. “People who are vaccinated have much higher immune memory than people who are naturally infected,” she says.
Antibody levels are not easy to determine in the real world. Can you take a test to find out how protected you are? The answer is no, because we don’t yet know what antibody level, or even which kind of antibodies, correlate with protection.
Also, there are many different kinds of antibody tests and they all use a slightly different scale, so there’s no broadly agreed upon way to measure them yet. It’s difficult to compare levels test to test.
Weeks or months between doses? Which is best?
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were tested to be given 3 and 4 weeks apart, respectively. But when the vaccines were first rolling out, shortages prompted some countries to stretch the interval between doses to 4 or more months.
Researchers who have studied the immune responses of people who were inoculated on an extended dosing schedule noticed something interesting: When the interval was stretched, people had better antibody responses. In fact, their antibody responses looked like the sky-high levels people got with hybrid immunity.
Susanna Dunachie, PhD, a global research professor at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, wondered why. She’s leading a team of researchers who are doing detailed studies of the immune responses of health care workers after their vaccinations.
“We found that B cells, which are the cells that make antibodies to the viral spike protein after vaccination, carry on increasing in number between 4 and 10 weeks after vaccination,” she says.
Waiting to give the second vaccine 6 to 14 weeks seems to stimulate the immune system when all of its antibody-making factories are finally up and running.
For this reason, giving the second dose at 3 weeks, she says, might be premature.
But there’s a tradeoff involved in waiting. If there are high levels of the virus circulating in a community, you want to get people fully vaccinated as quickly as possible to maximize their protection in the shortest window of time, which is what we decided to do in the United States.
Researchers say it might be a good idea to revisit the dosing interval when it’s less risky to try it.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Pfizer seeks EUA expansion for COVID-19 booster
Pfizer and its European partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 asked the U.S. government to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow everybody over 18 to receive their COVID-19 booster shots.
If the request is approved, He announced the goal last August but backed off after some scientists said younger people may not need boosters, especially with large parts of the world unvaccinated.
Pfizer is submitting a study of booster effects on 10,000 people to make its case, according to The Associated Press.
This would be Pfizer’s second attempt. In September, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel turned down Pfizer’s idea of booster shots for everybody over 18.
However, the committee recommended Pfizer booster shots for people 65 and over, essential workers, and people with underlying health conditions.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authorized the Pfizer booster for those other groups and later authorization was granted for the same groups with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson boosters. People who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccines should get a booster 6 months after the second dose and people who got the one-dose J&J vaccine should get a booster 2 months later.
The pro-booster argument has strengthened because new data have come in from Israel that confirm boosters provide protection as vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, The Washington Post reported. Also, health officials are worried about a post-holiday surge and because COVID-19 case counts and deaths are not dropping in every part of the country, though they are declining overall, according to the The Post report.
The regulatory path for a booster-for-all application is unclear. The Post, citing two unnamed officials, said the FDA probably won’t send the Pfizer application to the FDA advisory committee this time because the committee has already had extensive discussions about boosters. If the FDA gives the green light, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, would have to make updated recommendations on boosters, The Post article noted.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Pfizer and its European partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 asked the U.S. government to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow everybody over 18 to receive their COVID-19 booster shots.
If the request is approved, He announced the goal last August but backed off after some scientists said younger people may not need boosters, especially with large parts of the world unvaccinated.
Pfizer is submitting a study of booster effects on 10,000 people to make its case, according to The Associated Press.
This would be Pfizer’s second attempt. In September, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel turned down Pfizer’s idea of booster shots for everybody over 18.
However, the committee recommended Pfizer booster shots for people 65 and over, essential workers, and people with underlying health conditions.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authorized the Pfizer booster for those other groups and later authorization was granted for the same groups with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson boosters. People who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccines should get a booster 6 months after the second dose and people who got the one-dose J&J vaccine should get a booster 2 months later.
The pro-booster argument has strengthened because new data have come in from Israel that confirm boosters provide protection as vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, The Washington Post reported. Also, health officials are worried about a post-holiday surge and because COVID-19 case counts and deaths are not dropping in every part of the country, though they are declining overall, according to the The Post report.
The regulatory path for a booster-for-all application is unclear. The Post, citing two unnamed officials, said the FDA probably won’t send the Pfizer application to the FDA advisory committee this time because the committee has already had extensive discussions about boosters. If the FDA gives the green light, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, would have to make updated recommendations on boosters, The Post article noted.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Pfizer and its European partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 asked the U.S. government to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow everybody over 18 to receive their COVID-19 booster shots.
If the request is approved, He announced the goal last August but backed off after some scientists said younger people may not need boosters, especially with large parts of the world unvaccinated.
Pfizer is submitting a study of booster effects on 10,000 people to make its case, according to The Associated Press.
This would be Pfizer’s second attempt. In September, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel turned down Pfizer’s idea of booster shots for everybody over 18.
However, the committee recommended Pfizer booster shots for people 65 and over, essential workers, and people with underlying health conditions.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authorized the Pfizer booster for those other groups and later authorization was granted for the same groups with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson boosters. People who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccines should get a booster 6 months after the second dose and people who got the one-dose J&J vaccine should get a booster 2 months later.
The pro-booster argument has strengthened because new data have come in from Israel that confirm boosters provide protection as vaccine effectiveness wanes over time, The Washington Post reported. Also, health officials are worried about a post-holiday surge and because COVID-19 case counts and deaths are not dropping in every part of the country, though they are declining overall, according to the The Post report.
The regulatory path for a booster-for-all application is unclear. The Post, citing two unnamed officials, said the FDA probably won’t send the Pfizer application to the FDA advisory committee this time because the committee has already had extensive discussions about boosters. If the FDA gives the green light, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, would have to make updated recommendations on boosters, The Post article noted.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Should you tell your doctor that you’re a doctor?
The question drew spirited debate when urologist Ashley Winter, MD, made a simple, straightforward request on Twitter: “If you are a doctor & you come to an appointment please tell me you are a doctor, not because I will treat you differently but because it’s easier to speak in jargon.”
She later added, “This doesn’t’ mean I would be less patient-focused or emotional with a physician or other [healthcare worker]. Just means that, instead of saying ‘you will have a catheter draining your urine to a bag,’ I can say, ‘you will have a Foley.’ ”
The Tweet followed an encounter with a patient who told Dr. Winter that he was a doctor only after she had gone to some length explaining a surgical procedure in lay terms.
“I explained the surgery, obviously assuming he was an intelligent adult, but using fully layman’s terms,” she said in an interview. The patient then told her that he was a doctor. “I guess I felt this embarrassment — I wouldn’t have treated him differently, but I just could have discussed the procedure with him in more professional terms.”
“To some extent, it was my own fault,” she commented in an interview. “I didn’t take the time to ask [about his work] at the beginning of the consultation, but that’s a fine line, also,” added Dr. Winter, a urologist and sexual medicine physician in Portland, Ore.
“You know that patient is there because they want care from you and it’s not necessarily always at the forefront of importance to be asking them what they do for their work, but alternatively, if you don’t ask then you put them in this position where they have to find a way to go ahead and tell you.”
Several people chimed in on the thread to voice their thoughts on the matter. Some commiserated with Dr. Winter’s experience:
“I took care of a retired cardiologist in the hospital as a second-year resident and honest to god he let me ramble on ‘explaining’ his echo result and never told me. I found out a couple days later and wanted to die,” posted @MaddyAndrewsMD.
Another recalled a similarly embarrassing experience when she “went on and on” discussing headaches with a patient whose husband “was in the corner smirking.”
“They told my attending later [that the] husband was a retired FM doc who practiced medicine longer than I’ve been alive. I wanted to die,” posted @JSinghDO.
Many on the thread, though, were doctors and other healthcare professionals speaking as patients. Some said they didn’t want to disclose their status as a healthcare provider because they felt it affected the care they received.
For example, @drhelenrainford commented: “In my experience my care is less ‘caring’ when they know I am a [doctor]. I get spoken to like they are discussing a patient with me — no empathy just facts and difficult results just blurted out without consideration. Awful awful time as an inpatient …but that’s another story!”
@Dr_B_Ring said: “Nope – You and I speak different jargon – I would want you to speak to me like a human that doesn’t know your jargon. My ego would get in the way of asking about the acronyms I don’t know if you knew I was a fellow physician.”
Conversely, @lozzlemcfozzle said: “Honestly I prefer not to tell my Doctors — I’ve found people skip explanations assuming I ‘know,’ or seem a little nervous when I tell them!”
Others said they felt uncomfortable — pretentious, even — in announcing their status, or worried that they might come across as expecting special care.
“It’s such a tough needle to thread. Want to tell people early but not come off as demanding special treatment, but don’t want to wait too long and it seems like a trap,” said @MDaware.
Twitter user @MsBabyCatcher wrote: “I have a hard time doing this because I don’t want people to think I’m being pretentious or going to micromanage/dictate care.”
Replying to @MsBabyCatcher, @RedStethoscope wrote: “I used to think this too until I got [very poor] care a few times, and was advised by other doctor moms to ‘play the doctor card.’ I have gotten better/more compassionate care by making sure it’s clear that I’m a physician (which is junk, but here we are).”
Several of those responding used the words “tricky” and “awkward,” suggesting a common theme for doctors presenting as patients.
“I struggle with this. My 5-year-old broke her arm this weekend, we spent hours in the ED, of my own hospital, I never mentioned it because I didn’t want to get preferential care. But as they were explaining her type of fracture, it felt awkward and inefficient,” said @lindsay_petty.
To avoid the awkwardness, a number of respondents said they purposefully use medical jargon to open up a conversation rather than just offering up the information that they are a doctor.
Still others offered suggestions on how to broach the subject more directly when presenting as a patient:
‘”Just FYI I’m a X doc but I’m here because I really want your help and advice!” That’s what I usually do,” wrote @drcakefm.
@BeeSting14618 Tweeted: “I usually say ‘I know some of this but I’m here because I want YOUR guidance. Also I may ask dumb questions, and I’ll tell you if a question is asking your opinion or making a request.’”
A few others injected a bit of humor: “I just do the 14-part handshake that only doctors know. Is that not customary?” quipped @Branmiz25.
“Ah yes, that transmits the entire [history of present illness],” replied Dr. Winter.
Jokes aside, the topic is obviously one that touched on a shared experience among healthcare providers, Dr. Winter commented. The Twitter thread she started just “blew up.”
That’s typically a sign that the Tweet is relatable for a lot of people, she said.
“It’s definitely something that all of us as care providers and as patients understand. It’s a funny, awkward thing that can really change an interaction, so we probably all feel pretty strongly about our experiences related to that,” she added.
The debate begs the question: Is there a duty or ethical reason to disclose?
“I definitely think it is very reasonable to disclose that one is a medical professional to another doctor,” medical ethicist Charlotte Blease, PhD, said in an interview. “There are good reasons to believe doing so might make a difference to the quality of communication and transparency.”
If the ability to use medical terminology or jargon more freely improves patient understanding, autonomy, and shared decision-making, then it may be of benefit, said Dr. Blease, a Keane OpenNotes Scholar at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
“Since doctors should strive to communicate effectively with every patient and to respect their unique needs and level of understanding, then I see no reason to deny that one is a medic,” she added.”
Knowing how to share the information is another story.
“This is something that affects all of us as physicians — we’re going to be patients at some point, right?” Dr. Winter commented. “But I don’t think how to disclose that is something that was ever brought up in my medical training.”
“Maybe there should just be a discussion of this one day when people are in medical school — maybe in a professionalism course — to broach this topic or look at if there’s any literature on outcomes related to disclosure of status or what are best practices,” she suggested.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The question drew spirited debate when urologist Ashley Winter, MD, made a simple, straightforward request on Twitter: “If you are a doctor & you come to an appointment please tell me you are a doctor, not because I will treat you differently but because it’s easier to speak in jargon.”
She later added, “This doesn’t’ mean I would be less patient-focused or emotional with a physician or other [healthcare worker]. Just means that, instead of saying ‘you will have a catheter draining your urine to a bag,’ I can say, ‘you will have a Foley.’ ”
The Tweet followed an encounter with a patient who told Dr. Winter that he was a doctor only after she had gone to some length explaining a surgical procedure in lay terms.
“I explained the surgery, obviously assuming he was an intelligent adult, but using fully layman’s terms,” she said in an interview. The patient then told her that he was a doctor. “I guess I felt this embarrassment — I wouldn’t have treated him differently, but I just could have discussed the procedure with him in more professional terms.”
“To some extent, it was my own fault,” she commented in an interview. “I didn’t take the time to ask [about his work] at the beginning of the consultation, but that’s a fine line, also,” added Dr. Winter, a urologist and sexual medicine physician in Portland, Ore.
“You know that patient is there because they want care from you and it’s not necessarily always at the forefront of importance to be asking them what they do for their work, but alternatively, if you don’t ask then you put them in this position where they have to find a way to go ahead and tell you.”
Several people chimed in on the thread to voice their thoughts on the matter. Some commiserated with Dr. Winter’s experience:
“I took care of a retired cardiologist in the hospital as a second-year resident and honest to god he let me ramble on ‘explaining’ his echo result and never told me. I found out a couple days later and wanted to die,” posted @MaddyAndrewsMD.
Another recalled a similarly embarrassing experience when she “went on and on” discussing headaches with a patient whose husband “was in the corner smirking.”
“They told my attending later [that the] husband was a retired FM doc who practiced medicine longer than I’ve been alive. I wanted to die,” posted @JSinghDO.
Many on the thread, though, were doctors and other healthcare professionals speaking as patients. Some said they didn’t want to disclose their status as a healthcare provider because they felt it affected the care they received.
For example, @drhelenrainford commented: “In my experience my care is less ‘caring’ when they know I am a [doctor]. I get spoken to like they are discussing a patient with me — no empathy just facts and difficult results just blurted out without consideration. Awful awful time as an inpatient …but that’s another story!”
@Dr_B_Ring said: “Nope – You and I speak different jargon – I would want you to speak to me like a human that doesn’t know your jargon. My ego would get in the way of asking about the acronyms I don’t know if you knew I was a fellow physician.”
Conversely, @lozzlemcfozzle said: “Honestly I prefer not to tell my Doctors — I’ve found people skip explanations assuming I ‘know,’ or seem a little nervous when I tell them!”
Others said they felt uncomfortable — pretentious, even — in announcing their status, or worried that they might come across as expecting special care.
“It’s such a tough needle to thread. Want to tell people early but not come off as demanding special treatment, but don’t want to wait too long and it seems like a trap,” said @MDaware.
Twitter user @MsBabyCatcher wrote: “I have a hard time doing this because I don’t want people to think I’m being pretentious or going to micromanage/dictate care.”
Replying to @MsBabyCatcher, @RedStethoscope wrote: “I used to think this too until I got [very poor] care a few times, and was advised by other doctor moms to ‘play the doctor card.’ I have gotten better/more compassionate care by making sure it’s clear that I’m a physician (which is junk, but here we are).”
Several of those responding used the words “tricky” and “awkward,” suggesting a common theme for doctors presenting as patients.
“I struggle with this. My 5-year-old broke her arm this weekend, we spent hours in the ED, of my own hospital, I never mentioned it because I didn’t want to get preferential care. But as they were explaining her type of fracture, it felt awkward and inefficient,” said @lindsay_petty.
To avoid the awkwardness, a number of respondents said they purposefully use medical jargon to open up a conversation rather than just offering up the information that they are a doctor.
Still others offered suggestions on how to broach the subject more directly when presenting as a patient:
‘”Just FYI I’m a X doc but I’m here because I really want your help and advice!” That’s what I usually do,” wrote @drcakefm.
@BeeSting14618 Tweeted: “I usually say ‘I know some of this but I’m here because I want YOUR guidance. Also I may ask dumb questions, and I’ll tell you if a question is asking your opinion or making a request.’”
A few others injected a bit of humor: “I just do the 14-part handshake that only doctors know. Is that not customary?” quipped @Branmiz25.
“Ah yes, that transmits the entire [history of present illness],” replied Dr. Winter.
Jokes aside, the topic is obviously one that touched on a shared experience among healthcare providers, Dr. Winter commented. The Twitter thread she started just “blew up.”
That’s typically a sign that the Tweet is relatable for a lot of people, she said.
“It’s definitely something that all of us as care providers and as patients understand. It’s a funny, awkward thing that can really change an interaction, so we probably all feel pretty strongly about our experiences related to that,” she added.
The debate begs the question: Is there a duty or ethical reason to disclose?
“I definitely think it is very reasonable to disclose that one is a medical professional to another doctor,” medical ethicist Charlotte Blease, PhD, said in an interview. “There are good reasons to believe doing so might make a difference to the quality of communication and transparency.”
If the ability to use medical terminology or jargon more freely improves patient understanding, autonomy, and shared decision-making, then it may be of benefit, said Dr. Blease, a Keane OpenNotes Scholar at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
“Since doctors should strive to communicate effectively with every patient and to respect their unique needs and level of understanding, then I see no reason to deny that one is a medic,” she added.”
Knowing how to share the information is another story.
“This is something that affects all of us as physicians — we’re going to be patients at some point, right?” Dr. Winter commented. “But I don’t think how to disclose that is something that was ever brought up in my medical training.”
“Maybe there should just be a discussion of this one day when people are in medical school — maybe in a professionalism course — to broach this topic or look at if there’s any literature on outcomes related to disclosure of status or what are best practices,” she suggested.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The question drew spirited debate when urologist Ashley Winter, MD, made a simple, straightforward request on Twitter: “If you are a doctor & you come to an appointment please tell me you are a doctor, not because I will treat you differently but because it’s easier to speak in jargon.”
She later added, “This doesn’t’ mean I would be less patient-focused or emotional with a physician or other [healthcare worker]. Just means that, instead of saying ‘you will have a catheter draining your urine to a bag,’ I can say, ‘you will have a Foley.’ ”
The Tweet followed an encounter with a patient who told Dr. Winter that he was a doctor only after she had gone to some length explaining a surgical procedure in lay terms.
“I explained the surgery, obviously assuming he was an intelligent adult, but using fully layman’s terms,” she said in an interview. The patient then told her that he was a doctor. “I guess I felt this embarrassment — I wouldn’t have treated him differently, but I just could have discussed the procedure with him in more professional terms.”
“To some extent, it was my own fault,” she commented in an interview. “I didn’t take the time to ask [about his work] at the beginning of the consultation, but that’s a fine line, also,” added Dr. Winter, a urologist and sexual medicine physician in Portland, Ore.
“You know that patient is there because they want care from you and it’s not necessarily always at the forefront of importance to be asking them what they do for their work, but alternatively, if you don’t ask then you put them in this position where they have to find a way to go ahead and tell you.”
Several people chimed in on the thread to voice their thoughts on the matter. Some commiserated with Dr. Winter’s experience:
“I took care of a retired cardiologist in the hospital as a second-year resident and honest to god he let me ramble on ‘explaining’ his echo result and never told me. I found out a couple days later and wanted to die,” posted @MaddyAndrewsMD.
Another recalled a similarly embarrassing experience when she “went on and on” discussing headaches with a patient whose husband “was in the corner smirking.”
“They told my attending later [that the] husband was a retired FM doc who practiced medicine longer than I’ve been alive. I wanted to die,” posted @JSinghDO.
Many on the thread, though, were doctors and other healthcare professionals speaking as patients. Some said they didn’t want to disclose their status as a healthcare provider because they felt it affected the care they received.
For example, @drhelenrainford commented: “In my experience my care is less ‘caring’ when they know I am a [doctor]. I get spoken to like they are discussing a patient with me — no empathy just facts and difficult results just blurted out without consideration. Awful awful time as an inpatient …but that’s another story!”
@Dr_B_Ring said: “Nope – You and I speak different jargon – I would want you to speak to me like a human that doesn’t know your jargon. My ego would get in the way of asking about the acronyms I don’t know if you knew I was a fellow physician.”
Conversely, @lozzlemcfozzle said: “Honestly I prefer not to tell my Doctors — I’ve found people skip explanations assuming I ‘know,’ or seem a little nervous when I tell them!”
Others said they felt uncomfortable — pretentious, even — in announcing their status, or worried that they might come across as expecting special care.
“It’s such a tough needle to thread. Want to tell people early but not come off as demanding special treatment, but don’t want to wait too long and it seems like a trap,” said @MDaware.
Twitter user @MsBabyCatcher wrote: “I have a hard time doing this because I don’t want people to think I’m being pretentious or going to micromanage/dictate care.”
Replying to @MsBabyCatcher, @RedStethoscope wrote: “I used to think this too until I got [very poor] care a few times, and was advised by other doctor moms to ‘play the doctor card.’ I have gotten better/more compassionate care by making sure it’s clear that I’m a physician (which is junk, but here we are).”
Several of those responding used the words “tricky” and “awkward,” suggesting a common theme for doctors presenting as patients.
“I struggle with this. My 5-year-old broke her arm this weekend, we spent hours in the ED, of my own hospital, I never mentioned it because I didn’t want to get preferential care. But as they were explaining her type of fracture, it felt awkward and inefficient,” said @lindsay_petty.
To avoid the awkwardness, a number of respondents said they purposefully use medical jargon to open up a conversation rather than just offering up the information that they are a doctor.
Still others offered suggestions on how to broach the subject more directly when presenting as a patient:
‘”Just FYI I’m a X doc but I’m here because I really want your help and advice!” That’s what I usually do,” wrote @drcakefm.
@BeeSting14618 Tweeted: “I usually say ‘I know some of this but I’m here because I want YOUR guidance. Also I may ask dumb questions, and I’ll tell you if a question is asking your opinion or making a request.’”
A few others injected a bit of humor: “I just do the 14-part handshake that only doctors know. Is that not customary?” quipped @Branmiz25.
“Ah yes, that transmits the entire [history of present illness],” replied Dr. Winter.
Jokes aside, the topic is obviously one that touched on a shared experience among healthcare providers, Dr. Winter commented. The Twitter thread she started just “blew up.”
That’s typically a sign that the Tweet is relatable for a lot of people, she said.
“It’s definitely something that all of us as care providers and as patients understand. It’s a funny, awkward thing that can really change an interaction, so we probably all feel pretty strongly about our experiences related to that,” she added.
The debate begs the question: Is there a duty or ethical reason to disclose?
“I definitely think it is very reasonable to disclose that one is a medical professional to another doctor,” medical ethicist Charlotte Blease, PhD, said in an interview. “There are good reasons to believe doing so might make a difference to the quality of communication and transparency.”
If the ability to use medical terminology or jargon more freely improves patient understanding, autonomy, and shared decision-making, then it may be of benefit, said Dr. Blease, a Keane OpenNotes Scholar at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
“Since doctors should strive to communicate effectively with every patient and to respect their unique needs and level of understanding, then I see no reason to deny that one is a medic,” she added.”
Knowing how to share the information is another story.
“This is something that affects all of us as physicians — we’re going to be patients at some point, right?” Dr. Winter commented. “But I don’t think how to disclose that is something that was ever brought up in my medical training.”
“Maybe there should just be a discussion of this one day when people are in medical school — maybe in a professionalism course — to broach this topic or look at if there’s any literature on outcomes related to disclosure of status or what are best practices,” she suggested.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Unvaccinated people 20 times more likely to die from COVID: Texas study
During the month of September, , according to a new study from the Texas Department of State Health Services.
The data also showed that unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.
“This analysis quantifies what we’ve known for months,” Jennifer Shuford, MD, the state’s chief epidemiologist, told The Dallas Morning News.
“The COVID-19 vaccines are doing an excellent job of protecting people from getting sick and from dying from COVID-19,” she said. “Vaccination remains the best way to keep yourself and the people close to you safe from this deadly disease.”
As part of the study, researchers analyzed electronic lab reports, death certificates, and state immunization records, with a particular focus on September when the contagious Delta variant surged across Texas. The research marks the state’s first statistical analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations in Texas and the effects, the newspaper reported.
The protective effect of vaccination was most noticeable among younger groups. During September, the risk of COVID-19 death was 23 times higher in unvaccinated people in their 30s and 55 times higher for unvaccinated people in their 40s.
In addition, there were fewer than 10 COVID-19 deaths in September among fully vaccinated people between ages 18-29, as compared with 339 deaths among unvaccinated people in the same age group.
Then, looking at a longer time period -- from Jan. 15 to Oct. 1 -- the researchers found that unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. The protective effect of vaccination against infection was strong across all adult age groups but greatest among ages 12-17.
“All authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are highly effective at protecting people from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19, including those infected with Delta and other known variants,” the study authors wrote. “Real world data from Texas clearly shows these benefits.”
About 15.6 million people in Texas have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in a state of about 29 million residents, according to state data. About 66% of the population has received at least one dose, while 58% is fully vaccinated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
During the month of September, , according to a new study from the Texas Department of State Health Services.
The data also showed that unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.
“This analysis quantifies what we’ve known for months,” Jennifer Shuford, MD, the state’s chief epidemiologist, told The Dallas Morning News.
“The COVID-19 vaccines are doing an excellent job of protecting people from getting sick and from dying from COVID-19,” she said. “Vaccination remains the best way to keep yourself and the people close to you safe from this deadly disease.”
As part of the study, researchers analyzed electronic lab reports, death certificates, and state immunization records, with a particular focus on September when the contagious Delta variant surged across Texas. The research marks the state’s first statistical analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations in Texas and the effects, the newspaper reported.
The protective effect of vaccination was most noticeable among younger groups. During September, the risk of COVID-19 death was 23 times higher in unvaccinated people in their 30s and 55 times higher for unvaccinated people in their 40s.
In addition, there were fewer than 10 COVID-19 deaths in September among fully vaccinated people between ages 18-29, as compared with 339 deaths among unvaccinated people in the same age group.
Then, looking at a longer time period -- from Jan. 15 to Oct. 1 -- the researchers found that unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. The protective effect of vaccination against infection was strong across all adult age groups but greatest among ages 12-17.
“All authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are highly effective at protecting people from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19, including those infected with Delta and other known variants,” the study authors wrote. “Real world data from Texas clearly shows these benefits.”
About 15.6 million people in Texas have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in a state of about 29 million residents, according to state data. About 66% of the population has received at least one dose, while 58% is fully vaccinated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
During the month of September, , according to a new study from the Texas Department of State Health Services.
The data also showed that unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.
“This analysis quantifies what we’ve known for months,” Jennifer Shuford, MD, the state’s chief epidemiologist, told The Dallas Morning News.
“The COVID-19 vaccines are doing an excellent job of protecting people from getting sick and from dying from COVID-19,” she said. “Vaccination remains the best way to keep yourself and the people close to you safe from this deadly disease.”
As part of the study, researchers analyzed electronic lab reports, death certificates, and state immunization records, with a particular focus on September when the contagious Delta variant surged across Texas. The research marks the state’s first statistical analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations in Texas and the effects, the newspaper reported.
The protective effect of vaccination was most noticeable among younger groups. During September, the risk of COVID-19 death was 23 times higher in unvaccinated people in their 30s and 55 times higher for unvaccinated people in their 40s.
In addition, there were fewer than 10 COVID-19 deaths in September among fully vaccinated people between ages 18-29, as compared with 339 deaths among unvaccinated people in the same age group.
Then, looking at a longer time period -- from Jan. 15 to Oct. 1 -- the researchers found that unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. The protective effect of vaccination against infection was strong across all adult age groups but greatest among ages 12-17.
“All authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are highly effective at protecting people from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19, including those infected with Delta and other known variants,” the study authors wrote. “Real world data from Texas clearly shows these benefits.”
About 15.6 million people in Texas have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in a state of about 29 million residents, according to state data. About 66% of the population has received at least one dose, while 58% is fully vaccinated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Practicing telepsychiatry: Include backup plans, ground rules
For psychiatrists embarking on a telemedicine consultation, it might be helpful to review a checklist of steps that will reduce the risk of problems when things go wrong, according to an overview of the dangers at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.
Ideally, telepsychiatry will function much like an inpatient office visit, but the dynamics differ – as do the things that can go wrong, according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer, BryLin Behavioral Health System, Buffalo, N.Y. “Issues can arise suddenly. You need contingency planning.”
At the outset, psychiatrists should establish the location of the patient. This is necessary at every telemedicine encounter. With a remote device, a patient could be essentially anywhere on Earth. Patients might not even remember to mention that they are vacationing in Australia.
The location of the patient is important in the event of an unexpected crisis. This is not only relevant to an unstable patient at risk of dangerous behavior, such as actively attempting suicide, but to patients who have a seizure or some other emergency that inhibits communication. , and this requires confirming that the patient is where he or she was expected to be.
In addition, there should be a plan for technological failure. As everyone knows, these failures, such as dysfunction of a device, a poor connection, or an Internet outage, can happen at any time. Both the clinician and the patient can derive reassurance from at least one if not two or more plans to reconnect in the event of these failures.
The visit should also begin with questions that will establish the patient has a sense of adequate privacy. This is one of the most common obstacles to an effective telemedicine consultation. Dr. Gupta pointed out that phone or computer cameras do not typically permit the clinician to exclude the presence of another individual sitting even a few feet away from the patient. With spouses and children nearby, there might be a tenuous sense of privacy even if they are unlikely to overhear the telemedicine visit.
One strategy that can be used to assess the patient’s level of comfort is to ask for a description of the patient’s surroundings and any other people at the location. Dr. Gupta also said it is appropriate to establish ground rules about recording of the session, which has its own potential to inhibit the interaction.
Warning that some form of consent to a telemedicine visit is mandatory in most states, Dr. Gupta also cautioned that a formal identification check is appropriate for a first-time visit. The risk of an individual offering a false identification is likely to be low, but it can be eliminated entirely by a protocol that verifies consent and identify before the clinical work begins.
Because of the importance of engaging patients quickly, Dr. Gupta called the first few minutes of a telemedicine visit “crucial.” By initiating the visit with a warm and respectful tone, by relaying a competent and professional appearance, and by establishing an atmosphere that encourages communication, the initial minutes of the call can set a tone that facilitates an effective visit.
Simple and established telehealth etiquette strategies should be employed, according to Dr. Gupta. He suggested paying attention to such issues as lighting, background, and camera position. Descriptions of what constitutes adequate lighting and background are easily obtained on free how-to websites, but the goal is to provide patients with a nondistracting and clear view of the clinician.
During a telemedicine visit, the clinician’s focus should remain on the patient, according to Dr. Gupta. He advised against taking notes or documenting the visit on an electronic health record during the course of the visit. Rather, he advised positioning the camera in a way that the patient feels eye contact is being made.
“It can be helpful to periodically summarize what the patient has said to demonstrate that you are fully engaged,” Dr. Gupta suggested.
Telemedicine is very effective for many but not all patients. Some, such as those with active psychosis, are not suited to this approach, but others are simply uncomfortable with this form of communication. Dr. Gupta suggested that clinicians should be mindful of the advantages and the limitations of telepsychiatry.
Ultimately, Dr. Gupta believes that the substantial expansion of telepsychiatry that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to persist when the pandemic ends, even if many of the changes that permitted its expansion, such as a relaxation of HIPPA requirements, are withdrawn. However, parity reimbursement for visits offered by telemedicine relative to those that are face-to-face, which greatly facilitated the growth of telepsychiatry, is not guaranteed, so this remains an unanswered question.
“The question is what will happen to the billing codes when we see COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, and the answer is that no one knows,” he said.
Uncertainty about future use
Other experts in this field agreed. James (Jay) H. Shore, MD, MPH, director of telemedicine, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Depression Center, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, has long been an advocate for the value of telepsychiatry for reaching patients with limited psychosocial services. The attention drawn to this practice by the COVID-19 pandemic has been welcome, but he does not know how it will affect the future.
“There is too much uncertainty in the system to make a good prediction of where this may end up,” he said.
It is not just reimbursement that is at risk, according to Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis. Also a longtime advocate of telepsychiatry, particularly to reach the underserved, Dr. Yellowlees pointed out that the ability to prescribe controlled substances through telemedicine and the ability to consult with patients across state lines might also be in jeopardy if and when rules for telemedicine are revisited after the pandemic.
“Many organizations are lobbying to make the pandemic changes permanent because they greatly support telemedicine delivery,” Dr. Yellowlees said, but agreed about the uncertainty regarding what policy makers will do.
Jayasudha Gude, MD, who is completing her residency in psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, recently led a literature review evaluating the needs and viability of telepsychiatry during and after the COVID-19 era (Cureus. 2021 Aug;13:e16974). Based on the benefits she identified in her review, she said, “I would definitely want to advocate for the continued use of telepsychiatry after the pandemic is over.” She hopes that psychiatrists who now have experience in this area will join her.
“I am hopeful that a lot of mental health providers will also be advocating since they have experience, and many will want to continue its use,” she said. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Shore, Dr. Yellowlees, and Dr. Gude reported no potential conflicts of interest.
For psychiatrists embarking on a telemedicine consultation, it might be helpful to review a checklist of steps that will reduce the risk of problems when things go wrong, according to an overview of the dangers at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.
Ideally, telepsychiatry will function much like an inpatient office visit, but the dynamics differ – as do the things that can go wrong, according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer, BryLin Behavioral Health System, Buffalo, N.Y. “Issues can arise suddenly. You need contingency planning.”
At the outset, psychiatrists should establish the location of the patient. This is necessary at every telemedicine encounter. With a remote device, a patient could be essentially anywhere on Earth. Patients might not even remember to mention that they are vacationing in Australia.
The location of the patient is important in the event of an unexpected crisis. This is not only relevant to an unstable patient at risk of dangerous behavior, such as actively attempting suicide, but to patients who have a seizure or some other emergency that inhibits communication. , and this requires confirming that the patient is where he or she was expected to be.
In addition, there should be a plan for technological failure. As everyone knows, these failures, such as dysfunction of a device, a poor connection, or an Internet outage, can happen at any time. Both the clinician and the patient can derive reassurance from at least one if not two or more plans to reconnect in the event of these failures.
The visit should also begin with questions that will establish the patient has a sense of adequate privacy. This is one of the most common obstacles to an effective telemedicine consultation. Dr. Gupta pointed out that phone or computer cameras do not typically permit the clinician to exclude the presence of another individual sitting even a few feet away from the patient. With spouses and children nearby, there might be a tenuous sense of privacy even if they are unlikely to overhear the telemedicine visit.
One strategy that can be used to assess the patient’s level of comfort is to ask for a description of the patient’s surroundings and any other people at the location. Dr. Gupta also said it is appropriate to establish ground rules about recording of the session, which has its own potential to inhibit the interaction.
Warning that some form of consent to a telemedicine visit is mandatory in most states, Dr. Gupta also cautioned that a formal identification check is appropriate for a first-time visit. The risk of an individual offering a false identification is likely to be low, but it can be eliminated entirely by a protocol that verifies consent and identify before the clinical work begins.
Because of the importance of engaging patients quickly, Dr. Gupta called the first few minutes of a telemedicine visit “crucial.” By initiating the visit with a warm and respectful tone, by relaying a competent and professional appearance, and by establishing an atmosphere that encourages communication, the initial minutes of the call can set a tone that facilitates an effective visit.
Simple and established telehealth etiquette strategies should be employed, according to Dr. Gupta. He suggested paying attention to such issues as lighting, background, and camera position. Descriptions of what constitutes adequate lighting and background are easily obtained on free how-to websites, but the goal is to provide patients with a nondistracting and clear view of the clinician.
During a telemedicine visit, the clinician’s focus should remain on the patient, according to Dr. Gupta. He advised against taking notes or documenting the visit on an electronic health record during the course of the visit. Rather, he advised positioning the camera in a way that the patient feels eye contact is being made.
“It can be helpful to periodically summarize what the patient has said to demonstrate that you are fully engaged,” Dr. Gupta suggested.
Telemedicine is very effective for many but not all patients. Some, such as those with active psychosis, are not suited to this approach, but others are simply uncomfortable with this form of communication. Dr. Gupta suggested that clinicians should be mindful of the advantages and the limitations of telepsychiatry.
Ultimately, Dr. Gupta believes that the substantial expansion of telepsychiatry that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to persist when the pandemic ends, even if many of the changes that permitted its expansion, such as a relaxation of HIPPA requirements, are withdrawn. However, parity reimbursement for visits offered by telemedicine relative to those that are face-to-face, which greatly facilitated the growth of telepsychiatry, is not guaranteed, so this remains an unanswered question.
“The question is what will happen to the billing codes when we see COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, and the answer is that no one knows,” he said.
Uncertainty about future use
Other experts in this field agreed. James (Jay) H. Shore, MD, MPH, director of telemedicine, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Depression Center, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, has long been an advocate for the value of telepsychiatry for reaching patients with limited psychosocial services. The attention drawn to this practice by the COVID-19 pandemic has been welcome, but he does not know how it will affect the future.
“There is too much uncertainty in the system to make a good prediction of where this may end up,” he said.
It is not just reimbursement that is at risk, according to Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis. Also a longtime advocate of telepsychiatry, particularly to reach the underserved, Dr. Yellowlees pointed out that the ability to prescribe controlled substances through telemedicine and the ability to consult with patients across state lines might also be in jeopardy if and when rules for telemedicine are revisited after the pandemic.
“Many organizations are lobbying to make the pandemic changes permanent because they greatly support telemedicine delivery,” Dr. Yellowlees said, but agreed about the uncertainty regarding what policy makers will do.
Jayasudha Gude, MD, who is completing her residency in psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, recently led a literature review evaluating the needs and viability of telepsychiatry during and after the COVID-19 era (Cureus. 2021 Aug;13:e16974). Based on the benefits she identified in her review, she said, “I would definitely want to advocate for the continued use of telepsychiatry after the pandemic is over.” She hopes that psychiatrists who now have experience in this area will join her.
“I am hopeful that a lot of mental health providers will also be advocating since they have experience, and many will want to continue its use,” she said. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Shore, Dr. Yellowlees, and Dr. Gude reported no potential conflicts of interest.
For psychiatrists embarking on a telemedicine consultation, it might be helpful to review a checklist of steps that will reduce the risk of problems when things go wrong, according to an overview of the dangers at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.
Ideally, telepsychiatry will function much like an inpatient office visit, but the dynamics differ – as do the things that can go wrong, according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer, BryLin Behavioral Health System, Buffalo, N.Y. “Issues can arise suddenly. You need contingency planning.”
At the outset, psychiatrists should establish the location of the patient. This is necessary at every telemedicine encounter. With a remote device, a patient could be essentially anywhere on Earth. Patients might not even remember to mention that they are vacationing in Australia.
The location of the patient is important in the event of an unexpected crisis. This is not only relevant to an unstable patient at risk of dangerous behavior, such as actively attempting suicide, but to patients who have a seizure or some other emergency that inhibits communication. , and this requires confirming that the patient is where he or she was expected to be.
In addition, there should be a plan for technological failure. As everyone knows, these failures, such as dysfunction of a device, a poor connection, or an Internet outage, can happen at any time. Both the clinician and the patient can derive reassurance from at least one if not two or more plans to reconnect in the event of these failures.
The visit should also begin with questions that will establish the patient has a sense of adequate privacy. This is one of the most common obstacles to an effective telemedicine consultation. Dr. Gupta pointed out that phone or computer cameras do not typically permit the clinician to exclude the presence of another individual sitting even a few feet away from the patient. With spouses and children nearby, there might be a tenuous sense of privacy even if they are unlikely to overhear the telemedicine visit.
One strategy that can be used to assess the patient’s level of comfort is to ask for a description of the patient’s surroundings and any other people at the location. Dr. Gupta also said it is appropriate to establish ground rules about recording of the session, which has its own potential to inhibit the interaction.
Warning that some form of consent to a telemedicine visit is mandatory in most states, Dr. Gupta also cautioned that a formal identification check is appropriate for a first-time visit. The risk of an individual offering a false identification is likely to be low, but it can be eliminated entirely by a protocol that verifies consent and identify before the clinical work begins.
Because of the importance of engaging patients quickly, Dr. Gupta called the first few minutes of a telemedicine visit “crucial.” By initiating the visit with a warm and respectful tone, by relaying a competent and professional appearance, and by establishing an atmosphere that encourages communication, the initial minutes of the call can set a tone that facilitates an effective visit.
Simple and established telehealth etiquette strategies should be employed, according to Dr. Gupta. He suggested paying attention to such issues as lighting, background, and camera position. Descriptions of what constitutes adequate lighting and background are easily obtained on free how-to websites, but the goal is to provide patients with a nondistracting and clear view of the clinician.
During a telemedicine visit, the clinician’s focus should remain on the patient, according to Dr. Gupta. He advised against taking notes or documenting the visit on an electronic health record during the course of the visit. Rather, he advised positioning the camera in a way that the patient feels eye contact is being made.
“It can be helpful to periodically summarize what the patient has said to demonstrate that you are fully engaged,” Dr. Gupta suggested.
Telemedicine is very effective for many but not all patients. Some, such as those with active psychosis, are not suited to this approach, but others are simply uncomfortable with this form of communication. Dr. Gupta suggested that clinicians should be mindful of the advantages and the limitations of telepsychiatry.
Ultimately, Dr. Gupta believes that the substantial expansion of telepsychiatry that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to persist when the pandemic ends, even if many of the changes that permitted its expansion, such as a relaxation of HIPPA requirements, are withdrawn. However, parity reimbursement for visits offered by telemedicine relative to those that are face-to-face, which greatly facilitated the growth of telepsychiatry, is not guaranteed, so this remains an unanswered question.
“The question is what will happen to the billing codes when we see COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, and the answer is that no one knows,” he said.
Uncertainty about future use
Other experts in this field agreed. James (Jay) H. Shore, MD, MPH, director of telemedicine, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Depression Center, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, has long been an advocate for the value of telepsychiatry for reaching patients with limited psychosocial services. The attention drawn to this practice by the COVID-19 pandemic has been welcome, but he does not know how it will affect the future.
“There is too much uncertainty in the system to make a good prediction of where this may end up,” he said.
It is not just reimbursement that is at risk, according to Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer at the University of California, Davis. Also a longtime advocate of telepsychiatry, particularly to reach the underserved, Dr. Yellowlees pointed out that the ability to prescribe controlled substances through telemedicine and the ability to consult with patients across state lines might also be in jeopardy if and when rules for telemedicine are revisited after the pandemic.
“Many organizations are lobbying to make the pandemic changes permanent because they greatly support telemedicine delivery,” Dr. Yellowlees said, but agreed about the uncertainty regarding what policy makers will do.
Jayasudha Gude, MD, who is completing her residency in psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, recently led a literature review evaluating the needs and viability of telepsychiatry during and after the COVID-19 era (Cureus. 2021 Aug;13:e16974). Based on the benefits she identified in her review, she said, “I would definitely want to advocate for the continued use of telepsychiatry after the pandemic is over.” She hopes that psychiatrists who now have experience in this area will join her.
“I am hopeful that a lot of mental health providers will also be advocating since they have experience, and many will want to continue its use,” she said. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Shore, Dr. Yellowlees, and Dr. Gude reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY UPDATE