COVID-19 Updates

There is a significantly increased risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)–related death from COVID-19 among people with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), compared with the general population, according to data collected in Brazil in 2020.

“Special care is therefore necessary for these patients, as well as reinforcement of the importance of preventive measures during a pandemic for this population,” said Eloisa Bonfá, MD, PhD, at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which was held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“We know that lupus patients have an increased susceptibility to infections due to autoimmune dysregulation and use of immunosuppressive therapy,” explained Dr. Bonfá, who is clinical director of the largest tertiary referral center for autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Latin America, the University of São Paulo Faculty of Medicine Hospital Clinics.

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that lupus patients have an increased ARDS severity,” she added.

Prior to the meeting, the study was published in ACR Open Rheumatology.
 

Collating the evidence

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been more than 20 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil and more than half a million deaths.

Dr. Bonfá presented the results of a cross-sectional study that was part of the country’s national Influenza Epidemiological Reporting Surveillance System. Data from 2020 were used, which included just over 252,000 individuals who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these individuals, there were 319 consecutively recruited patients with SLE.

The aim was to look at the effect of being hospitalized for COVID-19–related ARDS on outcomes in people with SLE versus the general population.

ARDS was defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test and accompanying flu-like symptoms with dyspnea, respiratory discomfort, persistent pressure in the chest, or desaturation less than 95% in room air or having a bluish tinge to the lips or face.

Other telling signs of a serious respiratory infection that were evaluated, but not mandatory for study eligibility, were loss of smell, impaired taste, typical CT findings, or having had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the preceding 2 weeks.
 

Key findings

The risk for death from COVID-19–related ARDS was “more than double” in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, Dr. Bonfá reported. The relative risk in the fully adjusted, propensity-scored analysis was approximately 2.25.

That analysis did not account for other comorbidities but was fully adjusted for individuals’ age, sex, and region of Brazil where they lived. The latter was important, Dr. Bonfá said, because “we have a high disparity regarding health access and treatment among regions.”

Comorbidities considered as part of the analyses included arterial hypertension, diabetes, malignancies, neurologic disease, and diseases affecting the heart, lung, liver, and kidneys. Researchers also adjusted for smoking, alcohol intake, body weight, pregnancy, and transplantation.

SLE had a greater impact on individuals’ outcomes than all other comorbidities considered.

“We evaluated lupus as one comorbidity compared to all other comorbidities,” Dr. Bonfá explained.

SLE “more than doubled the chances” of dying from ARDS, she said. “This is [a] very impressive finding.”

They found that SLE was associated with an RR for death of 1.73, compared with non-SLE patients, when propensity-score matching without adjustment for comorbidities was used. The RR for death dropped to 1.40 but was still significant when researchers included comorbidities.

Dr. Bonfá and her team also looked at a combined endpoint of death, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. They found an increased risk in patients with SLE versus the general population in all their analyses, ranging from 1.70 if comorbidities were included in the model to 1.27 if they weren’t to 1.39 if propensity-score matching alone was used.  
 

Got lupus? ‘Get vaccinated’

“The data we have are in nonvaccinated patients,” Dr. Bonfá said. “We didn’t have vaccines in 2020.”

Whether being vaccinated might make a different to the risks found in this study is an “interesting question,” and one that may be examined in the future.

Certainly, other work Dr. Bonfá has been involved in seems to point to a likely benefit of vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases in terms of reducing mortality from COVID-19, even when rates of infection may be on the rise.  

“There’s considerable vaccine hesitancy in SLE patients,” Chi-Chiu Mok, MD, of Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, observed in a separate presentation at the congress.

This may be for several reasons, such as worry that their disease may flare or the vaccine might compromise their drug treatment or result in uncommon complications.

However, “we should encourage our SLE patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination at a time of clinical remission or low disease activity state,” Dr. Mok advised.

“Physical distancing, protective masks, and personal hygiene [measures]” should also continue.

The bottom line for those with SLE is to get vaccinated, stressed Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in Manila, the Philippines, during the discussion.

“There’s still so much out there that we do not know about,” she said. “Just get yourself vaccinated.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Bonfá, Dr. Mok, and Dr. Navarra reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a significantly increased risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)–related death from COVID-19 among people with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), compared with the general population, according to data collected in Brazil in 2020.

“Special care is therefore necessary for these patients, as well as reinforcement of the importance of preventive measures during a pandemic for this population,” said Eloisa Bonfá, MD, PhD, at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which was held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“We know that lupus patients have an increased susceptibility to infections due to autoimmune dysregulation and use of immunosuppressive therapy,” explained Dr. Bonfá, who is clinical director of the largest tertiary referral center for autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Latin America, the University of São Paulo Faculty of Medicine Hospital Clinics.

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that lupus patients have an increased ARDS severity,” she added.

Prior to the meeting, the study was published in ACR Open Rheumatology.
 

Collating the evidence

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been more than 20 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil and more than half a million deaths.

Dr. Bonfá presented the results of a cross-sectional study that was part of the country’s national Influenza Epidemiological Reporting Surveillance System. Data from 2020 were used, which included just over 252,000 individuals who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these individuals, there were 319 consecutively recruited patients with SLE.

The aim was to look at the effect of being hospitalized for COVID-19–related ARDS on outcomes in people with SLE versus the general population.

ARDS was defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test and accompanying flu-like symptoms with dyspnea, respiratory discomfort, persistent pressure in the chest, or desaturation less than 95% in room air or having a bluish tinge to the lips or face.

Other telling signs of a serious respiratory infection that were evaluated, but not mandatory for study eligibility, were loss of smell, impaired taste, typical CT findings, or having had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the preceding 2 weeks.
 

Key findings

The risk for death from COVID-19–related ARDS was “more than double” in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, Dr. Bonfá reported. The relative risk in the fully adjusted, propensity-scored analysis was approximately 2.25.

That analysis did not account for other comorbidities but was fully adjusted for individuals’ age, sex, and region of Brazil where they lived. The latter was important, Dr. Bonfá said, because “we have a high disparity regarding health access and treatment among regions.”

Comorbidities considered as part of the analyses included arterial hypertension, diabetes, malignancies, neurologic disease, and diseases affecting the heart, lung, liver, and kidneys. Researchers also adjusted for smoking, alcohol intake, body weight, pregnancy, and transplantation.

SLE had a greater impact on individuals’ outcomes than all other comorbidities considered.

“We evaluated lupus as one comorbidity compared to all other comorbidities,” Dr. Bonfá explained.

SLE “more than doubled the chances” of dying from ARDS, she said. “This is [a] very impressive finding.”

They found that SLE was associated with an RR for death of 1.73, compared with non-SLE patients, when propensity-score matching without adjustment for comorbidities was used. The RR for death dropped to 1.40 but was still significant when researchers included comorbidities.

Dr. Bonfá and her team also looked at a combined endpoint of death, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. They found an increased risk in patients with SLE versus the general population in all their analyses, ranging from 1.70 if comorbidities were included in the model to 1.27 if they weren’t to 1.39 if propensity-score matching alone was used.  
 

Got lupus? ‘Get vaccinated’

“The data we have are in nonvaccinated patients,” Dr. Bonfá said. “We didn’t have vaccines in 2020.”

Whether being vaccinated might make a different to the risks found in this study is an “interesting question,” and one that may be examined in the future.

Certainly, other work Dr. Bonfá has been involved in seems to point to a likely benefit of vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases in terms of reducing mortality from COVID-19, even when rates of infection may be on the rise.  

“There’s considerable vaccine hesitancy in SLE patients,” Chi-Chiu Mok, MD, of Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, observed in a separate presentation at the congress.

This may be for several reasons, such as worry that their disease may flare or the vaccine might compromise their drug treatment or result in uncommon complications.

However, “we should encourage our SLE patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination at a time of clinical remission or low disease activity state,” Dr. Mok advised.

“Physical distancing, protective masks, and personal hygiene [measures]” should also continue.

The bottom line for those with SLE is to get vaccinated, stressed Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in Manila, the Philippines, during the discussion.

“There’s still so much out there that we do not know about,” she said. “Just get yourself vaccinated.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Bonfá, Dr. Mok, and Dr. Navarra reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a significantly increased risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)–related death from COVID-19 among people with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), compared with the general population, according to data collected in Brazil in 2020.

“Special care is therefore necessary for these patients, as well as reinforcement of the importance of preventive measures during a pandemic for this population,” said Eloisa Bonfá, MD, PhD, at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which was held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“We know that lupus patients have an increased susceptibility to infections due to autoimmune dysregulation and use of immunosuppressive therapy,” explained Dr. Bonfá, who is clinical director of the largest tertiary referral center for autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Latin America, the University of São Paulo Faculty of Medicine Hospital Clinics.

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that lupus patients have an increased ARDS severity,” she added.

Prior to the meeting, the study was published in ACR Open Rheumatology.
 

Collating the evidence

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been more than 20 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil and more than half a million deaths.

Dr. Bonfá presented the results of a cross-sectional study that was part of the country’s national Influenza Epidemiological Reporting Surveillance System. Data from 2020 were used, which included just over 252,000 individuals who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these individuals, there were 319 consecutively recruited patients with SLE.

The aim was to look at the effect of being hospitalized for COVID-19–related ARDS on outcomes in people with SLE versus the general population.

ARDS was defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test and accompanying flu-like symptoms with dyspnea, respiratory discomfort, persistent pressure in the chest, or desaturation less than 95% in room air or having a bluish tinge to the lips or face.

Other telling signs of a serious respiratory infection that were evaluated, but not mandatory for study eligibility, were loss of smell, impaired taste, typical CT findings, or having had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the preceding 2 weeks.
 

Key findings

The risk for death from COVID-19–related ARDS was “more than double” in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, Dr. Bonfá reported. The relative risk in the fully adjusted, propensity-scored analysis was approximately 2.25.

That analysis did not account for other comorbidities but was fully adjusted for individuals’ age, sex, and region of Brazil where they lived. The latter was important, Dr. Bonfá said, because “we have a high disparity regarding health access and treatment among regions.”

Comorbidities considered as part of the analyses included arterial hypertension, diabetes, malignancies, neurologic disease, and diseases affecting the heart, lung, liver, and kidneys. Researchers also adjusted for smoking, alcohol intake, body weight, pregnancy, and transplantation.

SLE had a greater impact on individuals’ outcomes than all other comorbidities considered.

“We evaluated lupus as one comorbidity compared to all other comorbidities,” Dr. Bonfá explained.

SLE “more than doubled the chances” of dying from ARDS, she said. “This is [a] very impressive finding.”

They found that SLE was associated with an RR for death of 1.73, compared with non-SLE patients, when propensity-score matching without adjustment for comorbidities was used. The RR for death dropped to 1.40 but was still significant when researchers included comorbidities.

Dr. Bonfá and her team also looked at a combined endpoint of death, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. They found an increased risk in patients with SLE versus the general population in all their analyses, ranging from 1.70 if comorbidities were included in the model to 1.27 if they weren’t to 1.39 if propensity-score matching alone was used.  
 

Got lupus? ‘Get vaccinated’

“The data we have are in nonvaccinated patients,” Dr. Bonfá said. “We didn’t have vaccines in 2020.”

Whether being vaccinated might make a different to the risks found in this study is an “interesting question,” and one that may be examined in the future.

Certainly, other work Dr. Bonfá has been involved in seems to point to a likely benefit of vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases in terms of reducing mortality from COVID-19, even when rates of infection may be on the rise.  

“There’s considerable vaccine hesitancy in SLE patients,” Chi-Chiu Mok, MD, of Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, observed in a separate presentation at the congress.

This may be for several reasons, such as worry that their disease may flare or the vaccine might compromise their drug treatment or result in uncommon complications.

However, “we should encourage our SLE patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination at a time of clinical remission or low disease activity state,” Dr. Mok advised.

“Physical distancing, protective masks, and personal hygiene [measures]” should also continue.

The bottom line for those with SLE is to get vaccinated, stressed Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in Manila, the Philippines, during the discussion.

“There’s still so much out there that we do not know about,” she said. “Just get yourself vaccinated.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Bonfá, Dr. Mok, and Dr. Navarra reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly changed the dermatology residency application process. As medical students head into this application cycle, the impacts of systemic racism and deeply rooted structural barriers continue to be exacerbated for students who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) in medicine—historically defined as those who self-identify as Hispanic or Latinx; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines URMs as racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population.¹ Although these groups account for approximately 34% of the population of the United States, they constitute only 11% of the country’s physician workforce.^2,3

Of the total physician workforce in the United States, Black and African American physicians account for 5% of practicing physicians; Hispanic physicians, 5.8%; American Indian and Alaska Native physicians, 0.3%; and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander physicians, 0.1%.² In competitive medical specialties, the disproportionality of these numbers compared to our current demographics in the United States as shown above is even more staggering. In 2018, for example, 10% of practicing dermatologists identified as female URM physicians; 6%, as male URM physicians.² In this article, we discuss some of the challenges and considerations for URM students applying to dermatology residency in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers for URM Students in Dermatology

Multiple studies have attempted to identify some of the barriers faced by URM students in medicine that might explain the lack of diversity in competitive specialties. Vasquez and colleagues⁴ identified 4 major factors that play a role in dermatology: lack of equitable resources, lack of support, financial limitations, and the lack of group identity. More than half of URM students surveyed (1) identified lack of support as a barrier and (2) reported having been encouraged to seek a specialty more reflective of their community.⁴

Soliman et al⁵ reported that URM barriers in dermatology extend to include lack of diversity in the field, socioeconomic factors, lack of mentorship, and a negative perception of minority students by residency programs. Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine after orthopedic surgery, which, in and of itself, might further discourage URM students from applying to dermatology.⁵

With the minimal exposure that URM students have to the field of dermatology, the lack of pipeline programs, and reports that URMs often are encouraged to pursue primary care, the current diversity deficiency in dermatology comes as no surprise. In addition, the substantial disadvantage for URM students is perpetuated by the traditional highly selective process that favors grades, board scores, and honor society status over holistic assessment of the individual student and their unique experiences and potential for contribution.

Looking Beyond Test Scores

The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) traditionally has been used to select dermatology residency applicants, with high cutoff scores often excluding outstanding URM students. Research has suggested that the use of USMLE examination test scores for residency recruitment lacks validity because it has poor predictability of residency performance.⁶ Although the USMLE Step 1 examination is transitioning to pass/fail scoring, applicants for the next cycle will still have a 3-digit numerical score.

We strongly recommend that dermatology programs transition from emphasizing scores of residency candidates to reviewing each candidate holistically. The AAMC defines “holistic review” as a “flexible, individualized way of assessing an applicant’s capabilities, by which balanced consideration is given to experiences, attributes, competencies, and academic or scholarly metrics and, when considered in combination, how the individual might contribute value to the institution’s mission.”⁷ Furthermore, we recommend that dermatology residency programs have multiple faculty members review each application, including a representative of the diversity, inclusion, and equity committee.

In the COVID-19 era, dermatology externship opportunities that would have allowed URM students to work directly with potential residency programs, showcase their abilities, and network have been limited. Virtual residency interviews could make it more challenging to evaluate candidates, especially URM students from less prestigious programs or unusual socioeconomic backgrounds, or with lower board scores. In addition, virtual interviews can more easily become one-dimensional, depriving URM students of the opportunity to gauge their personal fit in a specific dermatology residency program and its community. Questions and concerns of URM students might include: Will I be appropriately supported and mentored? Will my cultural preferences, religion, sexual preference, hairstyle, and beliefs be accepted? Can I advocate for minorities and support antiracism and diversity and inclusion initiatives? To that end, we recommend that dermatology programs continue to host virtual meet-and-greet events for potential students to meet faculty and learn more about the program. In addition, programs should consider having current residents interact virtually with candidates to allow students to better understand the culture of the department and residents’ experiences as trainees in such an environment. For URM students, this is highly important because diversity, inclusion, and antiracism policies and initiatives might not be explicitly available on the institution’s website or residency information page.

Organizations Championing Diversity

Recently, multiple dermatology societies and organizations have been emphasizing the need for diversity and inclusion as well as promoting holistic application review. The American Academy of Dermatology pioneered the Diversity Champion Workshop in 2019 and continues to offer the Diversity Mentorship program, connecting URM students to mentors nationally. The Skin of Color Society offers yearly grants and awards to medical students to develop mentorship and research, and recently hosted webinars to guide medical students and residency programs on diversity and inclusion, residency application and review, and COVID-19 virtual interviews. Other national societies, such as the Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association, have been promoting workshops and interview mentoring for URM students, including dermatology-specific events. Although it is estimated that more than 90% of medical schools in the United States already perform holistic application review and that such review has been adopted by many dermatology programs nationwide, data regarding dermatology residency programs’ implementation of holistic application review are lacking.⁸

In addition, we encourage continuation of the proposed coordinated interview invite release from the Association of Professors of Dermatology, which was implemented in the 2020-2021 cycle. In light of the recent AAMC letter⁹ on the maldistribution of interview invitations to highest-tier applicants, coordination of interview release dates and other similar initiatives to prevent programs from offering more invites than their available slots and improve transparency about interview days are needed. Furthermore, continuing to offer optional virtual interviews for applicants in future cycles could make the process less cost-prohibitive for many URM students.^4,5

Final Thoughts

Dermatology residency programs must intentionally guard against falling back to traditional standards of assessment as the only means of student evaluation, especially in this virtual era. It is our responsibility to remove artificial barriers that continue to stall progress in diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging in dermatology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly changed the dermatology residency application process. As medical students head into this application cycle, the impacts of systemic racism and deeply rooted structural barriers continue to be exacerbated for students who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) in medicine—historically defined as those who self-identify as Hispanic or Latinx; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines URMs as racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population.¹ Although these groups account for approximately 34% of the population of the United States, they constitute only 11% of the country’s physician workforce.^2,3

Of the total physician workforce in the United States, Black and African American physicians account for 5% of practicing physicians; Hispanic physicians, 5.8%; American Indian and Alaska Native physicians, 0.3%; and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander physicians, 0.1%.² In competitive medical specialties, the disproportionality of these numbers compared to our current demographics in the United States as shown above is even more staggering. In 2018, for example, 10% of practicing dermatologists identified as female URM physicians; 6%, as male URM physicians.² In this article, we discuss some of the challenges and considerations for URM students applying to dermatology residency in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers for URM Students in Dermatology

Multiple studies have attempted to identify some of the barriers faced by URM students in medicine that might explain the lack of diversity in competitive specialties. Vasquez and colleagues⁴ identified 4 major factors that play a role in dermatology: lack of equitable resources, lack of support, financial limitations, and the lack of group identity. More than half of URM students surveyed (1) identified lack of support as a barrier and (2) reported having been encouraged to seek a specialty more reflective of their community.⁴

Soliman et al⁵ reported that URM barriers in dermatology extend to include lack of diversity in the field, socioeconomic factors, lack of mentorship, and a negative perception of minority students by residency programs. Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine after orthopedic surgery, which, in and of itself, might further discourage URM students from applying to dermatology.⁵

With the minimal exposure that URM students have to the field of dermatology, the lack of pipeline programs, and reports that URMs often are encouraged to pursue primary care, the current diversity deficiency in dermatology comes as no surprise. In addition, the substantial disadvantage for URM students is perpetuated by the traditional highly selective process that favors grades, board scores, and honor society status over holistic assessment of the individual student and their unique experiences and potential for contribution.

Looking Beyond Test Scores

The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) traditionally has been used to select dermatology residency applicants, with high cutoff scores often excluding outstanding URM students. Research has suggested that the use of USMLE examination test scores for residency recruitment lacks validity because it has poor predictability of residency performance.⁶ Although the USMLE Step 1 examination is transitioning to pass/fail scoring, applicants for the next cycle will still have a 3-digit numerical score.

We strongly recommend that dermatology programs transition from emphasizing scores of residency candidates to reviewing each candidate holistically. The AAMC defines “holistic review” as a “flexible, individualized way of assessing an applicant’s capabilities, by which balanced consideration is given to experiences, attributes, competencies, and academic or scholarly metrics and, when considered in combination, how the individual might contribute value to the institution’s mission.”⁷ Furthermore, we recommend that dermatology residency programs have multiple faculty members review each application, including a representative of the diversity, inclusion, and equity committee.

In the COVID-19 era, dermatology externship opportunities that would have allowed URM students to work directly with potential residency programs, showcase their abilities, and network have been limited. Virtual residency interviews could make it more challenging to evaluate candidates, especially URM students from less prestigious programs or unusual socioeconomic backgrounds, or with lower board scores. In addition, virtual interviews can more easily become one-dimensional, depriving URM students of the opportunity to gauge their personal fit in a specific dermatology residency program and its community. Questions and concerns of URM students might include: Will I be appropriately supported and mentored? Will my cultural preferences, religion, sexual preference, hairstyle, and beliefs be accepted? Can I advocate for minorities and support antiracism and diversity and inclusion initiatives? To that end, we recommend that dermatology programs continue to host virtual meet-and-greet events for potential students to meet faculty and learn more about the program. In addition, programs should consider having current residents interact virtually with candidates to allow students to better understand the culture of the department and residents’ experiences as trainees in such an environment. For URM students, this is highly important because diversity, inclusion, and antiracism policies and initiatives might not be explicitly available on the institution’s website or residency information page.

Organizations Championing Diversity

Recently, multiple dermatology societies and organizations have been emphasizing the need for diversity and inclusion as well as promoting holistic application review. The American Academy of Dermatology pioneered the Diversity Champion Workshop in 2019 and continues to offer the Diversity Mentorship program, connecting URM students to mentors nationally. The Skin of Color Society offers yearly grants and awards to medical students to develop mentorship and research, and recently hosted webinars to guide medical students and residency programs on diversity and inclusion, residency application and review, and COVID-19 virtual interviews. Other national societies, such as the Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association, have been promoting workshops and interview mentoring for URM students, including dermatology-specific events. Although it is estimated that more than 90% of medical schools in the United States already perform holistic application review and that such review has been adopted by many dermatology programs nationwide, data regarding dermatology residency programs’ implementation of holistic application review are lacking.⁸

In addition, we encourage continuation of the proposed coordinated interview invite release from the Association of Professors of Dermatology, which was implemented in the 2020-2021 cycle. In light of the recent AAMC letter⁹ on the maldistribution of interview invitations to highest-tier applicants, coordination of interview release dates and other similar initiatives to prevent programs from offering more invites than their available slots and improve transparency about interview days are needed. Furthermore, continuing to offer optional virtual interviews for applicants in future cycles could make the process less cost-prohibitive for many URM students.^4,5

Final Thoughts

Dermatology residency programs must intentionally guard against falling back to traditional standards of assessment as the only means of student evaluation, especially in this virtual era. It is our responsibility to remove artificial barriers that continue to stall progress in diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging in dermatology.

The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly changed the dermatology residency application process. As medical students head into this application cycle, the impacts of systemic racism and deeply rooted structural barriers continue to be exacerbated for students who identify as an underrepresented minority (URM) in medicine—historically defined as those who self-identify as Hispanic or Latinx; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines URMs as racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in medicine relative to their numbers in the general population.¹ Although these groups account for approximately 34% of the population of the United States, they constitute only 11% of the country’s physician workforce.^2,3

Of the total physician workforce in the United States, Black and African American physicians account for 5% of practicing physicians; Hispanic physicians, 5.8%; American Indian and Alaska Native physicians, 0.3%; and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander physicians, 0.1%.² In competitive medical specialties, the disproportionality of these numbers compared to our current demographics in the United States as shown above is even more staggering. In 2018, for example, 10% of practicing dermatologists identified as female URM physicians; 6%, as male URM physicians.² In this article, we discuss some of the challenges and considerations for URM students applying to dermatology residency in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers for URM Students in Dermatology

Multiple studies have attempted to identify some of the barriers faced by URM students in medicine that might explain the lack of diversity in competitive specialties. Vasquez and colleagues⁴ identified 4 major factors that play a role in dermatology: lack of equitable resources, lack of support, financial limitations, and the lack of group identity. More than half of URM students surveyed (1) identified lack of support as a barrier and (2) reported having been encouraged to seek a specialty more reflective of their community.⁴

Soliman et al⁵ reported that URM barriers in dermatology extend to include lack of diversity in the field, socioeconomic factors, lack of mentorship, and a negative perception of minority students by residency programs. Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine after orthopedic surgery, which, in and of itself, might further discourage URM students from applying to dermatology.⁵

With the minimal exposure that URM students have to the field of dermatology, the lack of pipeline programs, and reports that URMs often are encouraged to pursue primary care, the current diversity deficiency in dermatology comes as no surprise. In addition, the substantial disadvantage for URM students is perpetuated by the traditional highly selective process that favors grades, board scores, and honor society status over holistic assessment of the individual student and their unique experiences and potential for contribution.

Looking Beyond Test Scores

The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) traditionally has been used to select dermatology residency applicants, with high cutoff scores often excluding outstanding URM students. Research has suggested that the use of USMLE examination test scores for residency recruitment lacks validity because it has poor predictability of residency performance.⁶ Although the USMLE Step 1 examination is transitioning to pass/fail scoring, applicants for the next cycle will still have a 3-digit numerical score.

We strongly recommend that dermatology programs transition from emphasizing scores of residency candidates to reviewing each candidate holistically. The AAMC defines “holistic review” as a “flexible, individualized way of assessing an applicant’s capabilities, by which balanced consideration is given to experiences, attributes, competencies, and academic or scholarly metrics and, when considered in combination, how the individual might contribute value to the institution’s mission.”⁷ Furthermore, we recommend that dermatology residency programs have multiple faculty members review each application, including a representative of the diversity, inclusion, and equity committee.

In the COVID-19 era, dermatology externship opportunities that would have allowed URM students to work directly with potential residency programs, showcase their abilities, and network have been limited. Virtual residency interviews could make it more challenging to evaluate candidates, especially URM students from less prestigious programs or unusual socioeconomic backgrounds, or with lower board scores. In addition, virtual interviews can more easily become one-dimensional, depriving URM students of the opportunity to gauge their personal fit in a specific dermatology residency program and its community. Questions and concerns of URM students might include: Will I be appropriately supported and mentored? Will my cultural preferences, religion, sexual preference, hairstyle, and beliefs be accepted? Can I advocate for minorities and support antiracism and diversity and inclusion initiatives? To that end, we recommend that dermatology programs continue to host virtual meet-and-greet events for potential students to meet faculty and learn more about the program. In addition, programs should consider having current residents interact virtually with candidates to allow students to better understand the culture of the department and residents’ experiences as trainees in such an environment. For URM students, this is highly important because diversity, inclusion, and antiracism policies and initiatives might not be explicitly available on the institution’s website or residency information page.

Organizations Championing Diversity

Recently, multiple dermatology societies and organizations have been emphasizing the need for diversity and inclusion as well as promoting holistic application review. The American Academy of Dermatology pioneered the Diversity Champion Workshop in 2019 and continues to offer the Diversity Mentorship program, connecting URM students to mentors nationally. The Skin of Color Society offers yearly grants and awards to medical students to develop mentorship and research, and recently hosted webinars to guide medical students and residency programs on diversity and inclusion, residency application and review, and COVID-19 virtual interviews. Other national societies, such as the Student National Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association, have been promoting workshops and interview mentoring for URM students, including dermatology-specific events. Although it is estimated that more than 90% of medical schools in the United States already perform holistic application review and that such review has been adopted by many dermatology programs nationwide, data regarding dermatology residency programs’ implementation of holistic application review are lacking.⁸

In addition, we encourage continuation of the proposed coordinated interview invite release from the Association of Professors of Dermatology, which was implemented in the 2020-2021 cycle. In light of the recent AAMC letter⁹ on the maldistribution of interview invitations to highest-tier applicants, coordination of interview release dates and other similar initiatives to prevent programs from offering more invites than their available slots and improve transparency about interview days are needed. Furthermore, continuing to offer optional virtual interviews for applicants in future cycles could make the process less cost-prohibitive for many URM students.^4,5

Final Thoughts

Dermatology residency programs must intentionally guard against falling back to traditional standards of assessment as the only means of student evaluation, especially in this virtual era. It is our responsibility to remove artificial barriers that continue to stall progress in diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging in dermatology.

Anxiety and depression symptoms increased in adults last winter as COVID-19 surged in the United States but declined in the spring as COVID activity approached its nadir, according to an analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The relative increases and decreases in frequency of reported symptoms of anxiety and depression at both the national and state levels mirrored the national weekly number of new COVID-19 cases during the same period,” Haomiao Jia, PhD, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a national survey conducted Aug. 19-31, 2020, the average anxiety severity score was 2.0 and the average depression score was 1.6 among adults in all 50 states. Those scores rose to 2.3 (+13.0%) and 2.0 (+14.8%), respectively, by Dec. 9-21, but then fell to 1.7 (–26.8%) and 1.4 (–24.8%) during the survey conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2021, the investigators reported.

Despite that decrease in the spring, however, “the frequency of symptoms ... in June 2021 remained elevated compared with estimates from” 2019, said Dr. Jia of Columbia University, New York, and associates. Data from the National Health Interview Survey put the prepandemic severity scores at 0.63 for anxiety and 0.51 for depression.

Weekly symptom frequency in the Household Pulse Survey, which began in April 2020, was assessed with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, which includes two questions on anxiety and two on depression. Each answer scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms at all) to 3 (symptoms nearly every day), making a total of 6 possible for each severity score, they explained. Sample sizes for the biweekly surveys ranged from 58,729 to 110,019.

Among the states, there was something of a pattern involving the drop in scores during the fall and the rise over the winter and spring months. “States with larger increases in severity scores during August–December 2020 also tended to have larger decreases during January–June 2021,” the researchers noted.

That group includes Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah for anxiety and Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for depression, the survey data show.

Florida and New York had the smallest increases in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, from August to December, and New York had the smallest decrease in both anxiety and depression from January to June, Dr. Jia and associates said.

“Real-time monitoring of mental health symptoms can provide important information for responding to surges in the demand for mental health services during national emergencies. The observed differences in severity score magnitude and peaks across states in this study indicate that these efforts are important at both the national and state levels,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Anxiety and depression symptoms increased in adults last winter as COVID-19 surged in the United States but declined in the spring as COVID activity approached its nadir, according to an analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The relative increases and decreases in frequency of reported symptoms of anxiety and depression at both the national and state levels mirrored the national weekly number of new COVID-19 cases during the same period,” Haomiao Jia, PhD, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a national survey conducted Aug. 19-31, 2020, the average anxiety severity score was 2.0 and the average depression score was 1.6 among adults in all 50 states. Those scores rose to 2.3 (+13.0%) and 2.0 (+14.8%), respectively, by Dec. 9-21, but then fell to 1.7 (–26.8%) and 1.4 (–24.8%) during the survey conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2021, the investigators reported.

Despite that decrease in the spring, however, “the frequency of symptoms ... in June 2021 remained elevated compared with estimates from” 2019, said Dr. Jia of Columbia University, New York, and associates. Data from the National Health Interview Survey put the prepandemic severity scores at 0.63 for anxiety and 0.51 for depression.

Weekly symptom frequency in the Household Pulse Survey, which began in April 2020, was assessed with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, which includes two questions on anxiety and two on depression. Each answer scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms at all) to 3 (symptoms nearly every day), making a total of 6 possible for each severity score, they explained. Sample sizes for the biweekly surveys ranged from 58,729 to 110,019.

Among the states, there was something of a pattern involving the drop in scores during the fall and the rise over the winter and spring months. “States with larger increases in severity scores during August–December 2020 also tended to have larger decreases during January–June 2021,” the researchers noted.

That group includes Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah for anxiety and Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for depression, the survey data show.

Florida and New York had the smallest increases in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, from August to December, and New York had the smallest decrease in both anxiety and depression from January to June, Dr. Jia and associates said.

“Real-time monitoring of mental health symptoms can provide important information for responding to surges in the demand for mental health services during national emergencies. The observed differences in severity score magnitude and peaks across states in this study indicate that these efforts are important at both the national and state levels,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Anxiety and depression symptoms increased in adults last winter as COVID-19 surged in the United States but declined in the spring as COVID activity approached its nadir, according to an analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The relative increases and decreases in frequency of reported symptoms of anxiety and depression at both the national and state levels mirrored the national weekly number of new COVID-19 cases during the same period,” Haomiao Jia, PhD, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a national survey conducted Aug. 19-31, 2020, the average anxiety severity score was 2.0 and the average depression score was 1.6 among adults in all 50 states. Those scores rose to 2.3 (+13.0%) and 2.0 (+14.8%), respectively, by Dec. 9-21, but then fell to 1.7 (–26.8%) and 1.4 (–24.8%) during the survey conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2021, the investigators reported.

Despite that decrease in the spring, however, “the frequency of symptoms ... in June 2021 remained elevated compared with estimates from” 2019, said Dr. Jia of Columbia University, New York, and associates. Data from the National Health Interview Survey put the prepandemic severity scores at 0.63 for anxiety and 0.51 for depression.

Weekly symptom frequency in the Household Pulse Survey, which began in April 2020, was assessed with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, which includes two questions on anxiety and two on depression. Each answer scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms at all) to 3 (symptoms nearly every day), making a total of 6 possible for each severity score, they explained. Sample sizes for the biweekly surveys ranged from 58,729 to 110,019.

Among the states, there was something of a pattern involving the drop in scores during the fall and the rise over the winter and spring months. “States with larger increases in severity scores during August–December 2020 also tended to have larger decreases during January–June 2021,” the researchers noted.

That group includes Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah for anxiety and Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for depression, the survey data show.

Florida and New York had the smallest increases in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, from August to December, and New York had the smallest decrease in both anxiety and depression from January to June, Dr. Jia and associates said.

“Real-time monitoring of mental health symptoms can provide important information for responding to surges in the demand for mental health services during national emergencies. The observed differences in severity score magnitude and peaks across states in this study indicate that these efforts are important at both the national and state levels,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Background: Despite the increased mortality rate of the novel coronavirus compared with influenza, little is understood about its pathogenicity. Prior studies have identified D-dimer levels, high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and older age as markers for more severe disease and mortality. The specific cause of death of COVID-19 remains largely unknown.

This small case series piques interest in the potential underrecognized thromboembolic pathology of COVID-19. While not practice changing, this study highlights the importance of hospitalists staying attuned to further studies regarding VTE prophylaxis in COVID-19.

Bottom line: Autopsies of COVID-19 patients revealed a high incidence of thromboembolic events; COVID-19–induced coagulopathy may play an underrecognized role in pathogenesis.

Citation: Wichmann D et al. Autopsy findings and venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):268-77.

Dr. Fletcher is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Despite the increased mortality rate of the novel coronavirus compared with influenza, little is understood about its pathogenicity. Prior studies have identified D-dimer levels, high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and older age as markers for more severe disease and mortality. The specific cause of death of COVID-19 remains largely unknown.

This small case series piques interest in the potential underrecognized thromboembolic pathology of COVID-19. While not practice changing, this study highlights the importance of hospitalists staying attuned to further studies regarding VTE prophylaxis in COVID-19.

Bottom line: Autopsies of COVID-19 patients revealed a high incidence of thromboembolic events; COVID-19–induced coagulopathy may play an underrecognized role in pathogenesis.

Citation: Wichmann D et al. Autopsy findings and venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):268-77.

Dr. Fletcher is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Despite the increased mortality rate of the novel coronavirus compared with influenza, little is understood about its pathogenicity. Prior studies have identified D-dimer levels, high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and older age as markers for more severe disease and mortality. The specific cause of death of COVID-19 remains largely unknown.

This small case series piques interest in the potential underrecognized thromboembolic pathology of COVID-19. While not practice changing, this study highlights the importance of hospitalists staying attuned to further studies regarding VTE prophylaxis in COVID-19.

Bottom line: Autopsies of COVID-19 patients revealed a high incidence of thromboembolic events; COVID-19–induced coagulopathy may play an underrecognized role in pathogenesis.

Citation: Wichmann D et al. Autopsy findings and venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):268-77.

Dr. Fletcher is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


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

High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and ultraviolet (UV) light sterilization effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world test, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.

The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.

Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.

The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.

The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.

According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.

Cheap and easy

According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.

The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.

David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.

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

High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and ultraviolet (UV) light sterilization effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world test, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.

The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.

Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.

The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.

The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.

According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.

Cheap and easy

According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.

The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.

David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.

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

High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and ultraviolet (UV) light sterilization effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world test, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.

The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.

Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.

The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.

The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.

According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.

Cheap and easy

According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.

The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.

David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.

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