COVID-19 Updates

People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.

The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.

The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.

“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”

Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.

Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.

Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.

All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.

The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”

A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.

‘Some protection is better than none’

These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.

It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.

“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.

“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.

“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
 

Temporarily stopping methotrexate

It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.

Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.

“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”

Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.

However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.

This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.

The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.

The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.

“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”

Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.

Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.

Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.

All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.

The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”

A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.

‘Some protection is better than none’

These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.

It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.

“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.

“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.

“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
 

Temporarily stopping methotrexate

It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.

Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.

“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”

Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.

However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.

This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.

The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.

The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.

“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”

Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.

Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.

Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.

All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.

The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”

A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.

‘Some protection is better than none’

These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.

It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.

“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.

“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.

“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
 

Temporarily stopping methotrexate

It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.

Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.

“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”

Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.

However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.

This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People receiving the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine could be at increased risk for developing Guillain-Barré syndrome, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce as early as July 13, according to multiple media reports.

Although the FDA is projected to add the new warning to the labeling for the vaccine, the agency still calculates the benefit of vaccination with the J&J product continues to outweigh the risk. Benefits include protection against the Delta variant and serious COVID-19 outcomes.

More than 100 cases of Guillain-Barré reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a federal program for reporting vaccine issues, spurred the FDA to act.

Men and people older than 50 appear to be at highest risk, according to reports of a July 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statement. The CDC also revealed that most cases occur about 2 weeks following immunization.

Guillain-Barré syndrome often causes muscle weakness and sometimes temporary paralysis. Most people who develop the rare syndrome recover.

Such was not the case for a 57-year-old man, the New York Times reported July 12. He had a history of both a heart attack and stroke in the previous 4 years and died in April after vaccination with the J&J vaccine and developing Guillain-Barré.

The new warning comes in the wake of a number of setbacks for the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. On April 13, the FDA and CDC both recommended a 10-day pause on administration of the J&J vaccine after reports of rare blood clot events emerged. In mid-June, the FDA requested that Johnson and Johnson discard millions of vaccine doses produced at a manufacturing facility in Baltimore.

The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are not affected by the new FDA warning.

The Biden administration is expected to make a formal announcement of the new warning for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine as early as July 13, the Times reports.

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

People receiving the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine could be at increased risk for developing Guillain-Barré syndrome, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce as early as July 13, according to multiple media reports.

Although the FDA is projected to add the new warning to the labeling for the vaccine, the agency still calculates the benefit of vaccination with the J&J product continues to outweigh the risk. Benefits include protection against the Delta variant and serious COVID-19 outcomes.

More than 100 cases of Guillain-Barré reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a federal program for reporting vaccine issues, spurred the FDA to act.

Men and people older than 50 appear to be at highest risk, according to reports of a July 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statement. The CDC also revealed that most cases occur about 2 weeks following immunization.

Guillain-Barré syndrome often causes muscle weakness and sometimes temporary paralysis. Most people who develop the rare syndrome recover.

Such was not the case for a 57-year-old man, the New York Times reported July 12. He had a history of both a heart attack and stroke in the previous 4 years and died in April after vaccination with the J&J vaccine and developing Guillain-Barré.

The new warning comes in the wake of a number of setbacks for the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. On April 13, the FDA and CDC both recommended a 10-day pause on administration of the J&J vaccine after reports of rare blood clot events emerged. In mid-June, the FDA requested that Johnson and Johnson discard millions of vaccine doses produced at a manufacturing facility in Baltimore.

The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are not affected by the new FDA warning.

The Biden administration is expected to make a formal announcement of the new warning for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine as early as July 13, the Times reports.

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

People receiving the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine could be at increased risk for developing Guillain-Barré syndrome, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce as early as July 13, according to multiple media reports.

Although the FDA is projected to add the new warning to the labeling for the vaccine, the agency still calculates the benefit of vaccination with the J&J product continues to outweigh the risk. Benefits include protection against the Delta variant and serious COVID-19 outcomes.

More than 100 cases of Guillain-Barré reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a federal program for reporting vaccine issues, spurred the FDA to act.

Men and people older than 50 appear to be at highest risk, according to reports of a July 12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statement. The CDC also revealed that most cases occur about 2 weeks following immunization.

Guillain-Barré syndrome often causes muscle weakness and sometimes temporary paralysis. Most people who develop the rare syndrome recover.

Such was not the case for a 57-year-old man, the New York Times reported July 12. He had a history of both a heart attack and stroke in the previous 4 years and died in April after vaccination with the J&J vaccine and developing Guillain-Barré.

The new warning comes in the wake of a number of setbacks for the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. On April 13, the FDA and CDC both recommended a 10-day pause on administration of the J&J vaccine after reports of rare blood clot events emerged. In mid-June, the FDA requested that Johnson and Johnson discard millions of vaccine doses produced at a manufacturing facility in Baltimore.

The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are not affected by the new FDA warning.

The Biden administration is expected to make a formal announcement of the new warning for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine as early as July 13, the Times reports.

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

Some people recovering from COVID-19 fare worse than current or previous cancer patients when referred to outpatient rehabilitation services, a new study from the CDC demonstrates.

People experiencing ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms after COVID-19 illness were more likely to report pain, challenges with physical activities, and “substantially worse health,” compared with people needing rehabilitation because of cancer, lead author Jessica Rogers-Brown, PhD, and colleagues report.

The study was published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC investigators compared the self-reported physical and mental health symptoms, physical endurance, and use of health services of 1,295 outpatients recovering from COVID-19 and a control group of another 2,395 outpatients rehabilitating from a previous or current cancer diagnosis who had not experienced COVID-19.

Researchers used electronic health record data from January 2020 to March 2021 in the Select Medical network of outpatient clinics. The study included patients from 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Compared with people referred for cancer rehabilitation, those with COVID-19 symptoms lasting beyond 4 weeks were 2.3 times more likely to report pain, 1.8 times more likely to report worse physical health, and 1.6 times more likely to report difficulty with physical activities, an adjusted odds ratio analysis reveals.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation group also performed significantly worse on a 6-minute walk test, suggesting less physical endurance than people recovering from cancer (P < .001). They also used more rehabilitation services overall than the control group.

The researchers suggest services tailored to the unique physical and mental health rehabilitation needs of the post–COVID-19 patient population could be warranted.

The study does not suggest all people recovering with COVID-19 will fare worse than people recovering from cancer, the authors caution. They note that “these results should not be interpreted to mean that post–COVID-19 patients overall had poorer physical and mental health than patients with cancer.”

“Instead, results indicate that post–COVID-19 patients specifically referred to a large physical rehabilitation network had poorer health measures than those referred for cancer, which indicates that some patients recovering from COVID-19 had substantial rehabilitation needs.”

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

Some people recovering from COVID-19 fare worse than current or previous cancer patients when referred to outpatient rehabilitation services, a new study from the CDC demonstrates.

People experiencing ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms after COVID-19 illness were more likely to report pain, challenges with physical activities, and “substantially worse health,” compared with people needing rehabilitation because of cancer, lead author Jessica Rogers-Brown, PhD, and colleagues report.

The study was published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC investigators compared the self-reported physical and mental health symptoms, physical endurance, and use of health services of 1,295 outpatients recovering from COVID-19 and a control group of another 2,395 outpatients rehabilitating from a previous or current cancer diagnosis who had not experienced COVID-19.

Researchers used electronic health record data from January 2020 to March 2021 in the Select Medical network of outpatient clinics. The study included patients from 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Compared with people referred for cancer rehabilitation, those with COVID-19 symptoms lasting beyond 4 weeks were 2.3 times more likely to report pain, 1.8 times more likely to report worse physical health, and 1.6 times more likely to report difficulty with physical activities, an adjusted odds ratio analysis reveals.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation group also performed significantly worse on a 6-minute walk test, suggesting less physical endurance than people recovering from cancer (P < .001). They also used more rehabilitation services overall than the control group.

The researchers suggest services tailored to the unique physical and mental health rehabilitation needs of the post–COVID-19 patient population could be warranted.

The study does not suggest all people recovering with COVID-19 will fare worse than people recovering from cancer, the authors caution. They note that “these results should not be interpreted to mean that post–COVID-19 patients overall had poorer physical and mental health than patients with cancer.”

“Instead, results indicate that post–COVID-19 patients specifically referred to a large physical rehabilitation network had poorer health measures than those referred for cancer, which indicates that some patients recovering from COVID-19 had substantial rehabilitation needs.”

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

Some people recovering from COVID-19 fare worse than current or previous cancer patients when referred to outpatient rehabilitation services, a new study from the CDC demonstrates.

People experiencing ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms after COVID-19 illness were more likely to report pain, challenges with physical activities, and “substantially worse health,” compared with people needing rehabilitation because of cancer, lead author Jessica Rogers-Brown, PhD, and colleagues report.

The study was published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC investigators compared the self-reported physical and mental health symptoms, physical endurance, and use of health services of 1,295 outpatients recovering from COVID-19 and a control group of another 2,395 outpatients rehabilitating from a previous or current cancer diagnosis who had not experienced COVID-19.

Researchers used electronic health record data from January 2020 to March 2021 in the Select Medical network of outpatient clinics. The study included patients from 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Compared with people referred for cancer rehabilitation, those with COVID-19 symptoms lasting beyond 4 weeks were 2.3 times more likely to report pain, 1.8 times more likely to report worse physical health, and 1.6 times more likely to report difficulty with physical activities, an adjusted odds ratio analysis reveals.

The COVID-19 rehabilitation group also performed significantly worse on a 6-minute walk test, suggesting less physical endurance than people recovering from cancer (P < .001). They also used more rehabilitation services overall than the control group.

The researchers suggest services tailored to the unique physical and mental health rehabilitation needs of the post–COVID-19 patient population could be warranted.

The study does not suggest all people recovering with COVID-19 will fare worse than people recovering from cancer, the authors caution. They note that “these results should not be interpreted to mean that post–COVID-19 patients overall had poorer physical and mental health than patients with cancer.”

“Instead, results indicate that post–COVID-19 patients specifically referred to a large physical rehabilitation network had poorer health measures than those referred for cancer, which indicates that some patients recovering from COVID-19 had substantial rehabilitation needs.”

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

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can experience lingering physiologic effects after they recover, according to early data from an ongoing study that is harnessing the power of Fitbits and other wearable trackers to gauge long-term effects of COVID-19.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine longer duration wearable sensor data. We found a prolonged physiological impact of COVID-19 infection, lasting approximately 2-3 months, on average, but with substantial intra-individual variability,” report Jennifer Radin, PhD, MPH, and colleagues with the Scripps Research Translational Institute, San Diego.

The study was published online July 7 in JAMA Network Open.

The DETECT study is enrolling adults from all over the United States and is collecting their health data from different wearable devices to better understand changes associated with viral illness, including COVID-19.

The current analysis focuses on a subset of 875 device wearers who reported symptoms of an acute respiratory illness and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 234 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 641 were presumed to have other viral infections (COVID-19-negative symptomatic individuals).

The investigators found that among people with COVID-19, it took longer to return to baseline status with respect to resting heart rate (RHR), sleep, and activity compared with those who had symptoms of viral illness but who did not have COVID-19.

“This difference was most marked for RHR, with COVID-19-positive individuals initially experiencing a transient bradycardia followed by a prolonged relative tachycardia that did not return to baseline, on average, until 79 days after symptom onset,” Dr. Radin and colleagues reported.

Step count and sleep quantity returned to baseline values sooner than RHR, at 32 days and 24 days, respectively.

Among people with COVID-19, during recovery, trajectories differed with respect to return of RHR to normal in comparison with persons who did not have COVID-19.

The RHR of 32 COVID-19–positive participants (13.7%) remained 5 beats/min greater than their baseline RHR for more than 133 days, on average. During the acute phase of COVID-19, these individuals were more apt to report cough, body ache, and shortness of breath compared with other groups.
 

Limitation

The researchers say a limitation of this analysis is that symptom data were collected only during the acute phase of infection, which limits the ability to compare long-term physiologic and behavioral changes with long-term symptoms.

“In the future, with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive participant-reported outcomes, it will be possible to better understand factors associated with inter-individualized variability in COVID-19 recovery,” they concluded.

Earlier data from the DETECT study showed that pairing wearable tracker data with self-reported symptoms can improve COVID-19 prediction.

As previously reported by this news organization, DETECT investigators found that associating participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and RHR, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.80 for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

Funding for the current study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can experience lingering physiologic effects after they recover, according to early data from an ongoing study that is harnessing the power of Fitbits and other wearable trackers to gauge long-term effects of COVID-19.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine longer duration wearable sensor data. We found a prolonged physiological impact of COVID-19 infection, lasting approximately 2-3 months, on average, but with substantial intra-individual variability,” report Jennifer Radin, PhD, MPH, and colleagues with the Scripps Research Translational Institute, San Diego.

The study was published online July 7 in JAMA Network Open.

The DETECT study is enrolling adults from all over the United States and is collecting their health data from different wearable devices to better understand changes associated with viral illness, including COVID-19.

The current analysis focuses on a subset of 875 device wearers who reported symptoms of an acute respiratory illness and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 234 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 641 were presumed to have other viral infections (COVID-19-negative symptomatic individuals).

The investigators found that among people with COVID-19, it took longer to return to baseline status with respect to resting heart rate (RHR), sleep, and activity compared with those who had symptoms of viral illness but who did not have COVID-19.

“This difference was most marked for RHR, with COVID-19-positive individuals initially experiencing a transient bradycardia followed by a prolonged relative tachycardia that did not return to baseline, on average, until 79 days after symptom onset,” Dr. Radin and colleagues reported.

Step count and sleep quantity returned to baseline values sooner than RHR, at 32 days and 24 days, respectively.

Among people with COVID-19, during recovery, trajectories differed with respect to return of RHR to normal in comparison with persons who did not have COVID-19.

The RHR of 32 COVID-19–positive participants (13.7%) remained 5 beats/min greater than their baseline RHR for more than 133 days, on average. During the acute phase of COVID-19, these individuals were more apt to report cough, body ache, and shortness of breath compared with other groups.
 

Limitation

The researchers say a limitation of this analysis is that symptom data were collected only during the acute phase of infection, which limits the ability to compare long-term physiologic and behavioral changes with long-term symptoms.

“In the future, with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive participant-reported outcomes, it will be possible to better understand factors associated with inter-individualized variability in COVID-19 recovery,” they concluded.

Earlier data from the DETECT study showed that pairing wearable tracker data with self-reported symptoms can improve COVID-19 prediction.

As previously reported by this news organization, DETECT investigators found that associating participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and RHR, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.80 for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

Funding for the current study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can experience lingering physiologic effects after they recover, according to early data from an ongoing study that is harnessing the power of Fitbits and other wearable trackers to gauge long-term effects of COVID-19.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine longer duration wearable sensor data. We found a prolonged physiological impact of COVID-19 infection, lasting approximately 2-3 months, on average, but with substantial intra-individual variability,” report Jennifer Radin, PhD, MPH, and colleagues with the Scripps Research Translational Institute, San Diego.

The study was published online July 7 in JAMA Network Open.

The DETECT study is enrolling adults from all over the United States and is collecting their health data from different wearable devices to better understand changes associated with viral illness, including COVID-19.

The current analysis focuses on a subset of 875 device wearers who reported symptoms of an acute respiratory illness and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 234 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 641 were presumed to have other viral infections (COVID-19-negative symptomatic individuals).

The investigators found that among people with COVID-19, it took longer to return to baseline status with respect to resting heart rate (RHR), sleep, and activity compared with those who had symptoms of viral illness but who did not have COVID-19.

“This difference was most marked for RHR, with COVID-19-positive individuals initially experiencing a transient bradycardia followed by a prolonged relative tachycardia that did not return to baseline, on average, until 79 days after symptom onset,” Dr. Radin and colleagues reported.

Step count and sleep quantity returned to baseline values sooner than RHR, at 32 days and 24 days, respectively.

Among people with COVID-19, during recovery, trajectories differed with respect to return of RHR to normal in comparison with persons who did not have COVID-19.

The RHR of 32 COVID-19–positive participants (13.7%) remained 5 beats/min greater than their baseline RHR for more than 133 days, on average. During the acute phase of COVID-19, these individuals were more apt to report cough, body ache, and shortness of breath compared with other groups.
 

Limitation

The researchers say a limitation of this analysis is that symptom data were collected only during the acute phase of infection, which limits the ability to compare long-term physiologic and behavioral changes with long-term symptoms.

“In the future, with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive participant-reported outcomes, it will be possible to better understand factors associated with inter-individualized variability in COVID-19 recovery,” they concluded.

Earlier data from the DETECT study showed that pairing wearable tracker data with self-reported symptoms can improve COVID-19 prediction.

As previously reported by this news organization, DETECT investigators found that associating participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and RHR, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.80 for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

Funding for the current study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein

Amidst the myriad of disruptions and corollary solutions budding from the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, management of acne with isotretinoin underwent a makeover. Firstly, as with any pharmaceutical prescribed in the last 1 to 2 years, patients asked the compelling question, “Will this prescription put me at higher risk for COVID-19?”, resulting in a complex set of answers from both clinical and basic science perspectives. Further, the practical use of telemedicine for clinical visits and pregnancy test reporting altered the shape of isotretinoin physician-patient communication and follow-up. Finally, the combination of these circumstances spurred us to revisit common quandaries in prescribing this drug: Can we trust what patients tell us when they are taking isotretinoin? Do we need to monitor laboratory values and follow patients on isotretinoin as closely and as frequently as we have in the past? Does the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program of iPLEDGE hold true utility?

Impact of COVID-19 on Isotretinoin Use

Isotretinoin may have varying influence on the ease of host entry and virulence of COVID-19. Because the majority of patients experience some degree of mucous membrane desiccation on isotretinoin, it originally was postulated that disruption of the nasal mucosa, thereby uncovering the basal epithelial layer where angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors are expressed, could increase the risk for viral invasion, as ACE2 is the host receptor for COVID-19 entry.^1,2 On the other hand, a study of 672 medications and their effect on regulation of ACE2 levels stratified isotretinoin in the highest category of ACE2 downregulators, therefore theoretically preventing cellular entry and replication of the virus.³ In conferring with many of my colleagues and reviewing available literature, I found that these data did not summarily deter providers from initiating or continuing isotretinoin during the pandemic, and research is ongoing to particularly earmark isotretinoin as a possible COVID-19 therapy option.^4,5 Despite this, and despite the lower risk for COVID-19 in the customary isotretinoin adolescent and young adult age range, an Italian study reported that 14.7% of patients (5/34) prematurely interrupted isotretinoin therapy during lockdown because of fear of COVID-19 infection.⁶ Data also suggest that college towns (akin to where I practice, rife with isotretinoin-eligible patients) reflected higher COVID-19 infection and death rates, likely due to dense cohabitation and intermittent migration of students and staff to and from campuses and within their communities.⁷ Approximately 30% of my patients on isotretinoin in the last 18 months reported having COVID-19 at some point during the pandemic, though no data exist to guide us on whether isotretinoin should be discontinued in this scenario; my patients typically continued the drug unless their primary health care team discouraged it, and in those cases, all of them resumed it after COVID-19 symptomatology resolved.

Last spring, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Food and Drug Administration announced that health care professionals who prescribe and/or dispense drugs subject to REMS with laboratory testing or imaging requirements should consider whether there are compelling reasons not to complete the required testing/imaging during the current public health emergency and use their best medical judgment in weighing the benefits and risks of continuing treatment in the absence of these tests. It also was stressed that prescribers should effectively communicate with their patients regarding these benefits, risks, and altered protocols.⁸ Further, the iPLEDGE program concurred that telemedicine was an acceptable visit type for both initiating and maintaining isotretinoin, and home pregnancy tests were valid for females of childbearing potential if an accurate testing date and results were communicated by patients to the prescriber in the required reporting windows.⁹ This allowed dermatologists to foster what was one of our most important roles as outpatient clinicians during the pandemic: to maintain normalcy, continuity, and support for as many patients as possible.

Isotretinoin and Telemedicine

During the pandemic, continuation of isotretinoin therapy proved easier than initiating it, given that patients could access and maintain a clear connection to the online visit platform, display understanding of the REMS mandates (along with a guardian present for a minor), perform a home pregnancy test and report the result followed by the quiz (for females), and collect the prescription in the allotted window. For new patients, the absence of a detailed in-person examination and rapport with the patient (and guardians when applicable) as well as misalignment of the date of iPLEDGE registration with the timing of the pregnancy test results and prescribing window were more onerous using digital or mailed versions of consent forms and photodocumentation of urine pregnancy test results. This tangle of requirements perpetuated missed prescribing windows, increased patient portal and phone messages, resulted in more time on the phone with the iPLEDGE help desk, and intensified angst for clinical staff.

These telemedicine visits also required validation of the patient’s geographic location to verify the billability of the visit and whether the patient was in a secure location to have a US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant conversation as well as the abstract notion that the timing and result of the pregnancy tests for females reflected a true nonpregnant state.^10,11 Verification of the pregnancy tests in these situations was approached by either the patient reporting the outcome verbally or displaying the pregnancy test kit result in a video or photograph form for the medical record, all of which leave room for error, doubt, and lower sensitivity than laboratory-based collection. That being said, the increased implementation of telemedicine visits during the pandemic sustained patient access, decreased cost with less laboratory testing and reduced time away from work or school, and resulted in high patient satisfaction with their care.¹² Additionally, it allowed providers to continue to more comfortably inch away from frequent in-person serologic cholesterol and hepatic testing during therapy based on mounting data that it is not indicated.¹³

Accordingly, the complicated concepts of trust, practicality, and sustainability for the safe and effective management of isotretinoin patients re-emerged. For example, prior to COVID-19, we trusted patients who said they were regularly taking their oral contraceptives or were truly practicing abstinence as a form of contraception. During the pandemic, we then added a layer of trust with home pregnancy test reporting. If the patient or guardian signed the isotretinoin consent form and understood the risks of the medication, ideally the physician-patient relationship fostered the optimal goals of honest conversation, adherence to the drug, safety, and clear skin. However, there is yet another trust assay: iPLEDGE, in turn, trusts that we are reporting patient data accurately, provoking us to reiterate questions we asked ourselves before the pandemic. Is the extra provider and staff clerical work and validation necessary, compounded by prior data that iPLEDGE’s capacity to limit pregnancy-related morbidity with isotretinoin has been called into question in the last decade?¹⁴ Do males need to be followed every month? Is laboratory monitoring still necessary for all isotretinoin candidates? Will post–COVID-19 data show that during various versions of the lockdown, an increased number of isotretinoin patients developed unmonitored morbidity, including transaminitis, hypertriglyceridemia, and an increase in pregnancies? How long will telemedicine visits for isotretinoin be reimbursable beyond the pandemic? Are there other models to enhance and improve isotretinoin teledermatology and compliance?¹⁵

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists’ experience managing high volumes of isotretinoin patients paired with the creativity to maintain meaningful (and truthful) patient connections and decrease administrative burden lie front and center in 2021. Because the COVID-19 pandemic remains ambient with a dearth of data to guide us, I pose the questions above as points for commiseration and catapults for future study, discussion, collaboration, and innovation. Perhaps the neo–COVID-19 world provided us with the spark we needed to metaphorically clean up the dusty isotretinoin tenets that have frayed our time and patience so we can maintain excellent care for this worthy population.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein

Amidst the myriad of disruptions and corollary solutions budding from the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, management of acne with isotretinoin underwent a makeover. Firstly, as with any pharmaceutical prescribed in the last 1 to 2 years, patients asked the compelling question, “Will this prescription put me at higher risk for COVID-19?”, resulting in a complex set of answers from both clinical and basic science perspectives. Further, the practical use of telemedicine for clinical visits and pregnancy test reporting altered the shape of isotretinoin physician-patient communication and follow-up. Finally, the combination of these circumstances spurred us to revisit common quandaries in prescribing this drug: Can we trust what patients tell us when they are taking isotretinoin? Do we need to monitor laboratory values and follow patients on isotretinoin as closely and as frequently as we have in the past? Does the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program of iPLEDGE hold true utility?

Impact of COVID-19 on Isotretinoin Use

Isotretinoin may have varying influence on the ease of host entry and virulence of COVID-19. Because the majority of patients experience some degree of mucous membrane desiccation on isotretinoin, it originally was postulated that disruption of the nasal mucosa, thereby uncovering the basal epithelial layer where angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors are expressed, could increase the risk for viral invasion, as ACE2 is the host receptor for COVID-19 entry.^1,2 On the other hand, a study of 672 medications and their effect on regulation of ACE2 levels stratified isotretinoin in the highest category of ACE2 downregulators, therefore theoretically preventing cellular entry and replication of the virus.³ In conferring with many of my colleagues and reviewing available literature, I found that these data did not summarily deter providers from initiating or continuing isotretinoin during the pandemic, and research is ongoing to particularly earmark isotretinoin as a possible COVID-19 therapy option.^4,5 Despite this, and despite the lower risk for COVID-19 in the customary isotretinoin adolescent and young adult age range, an Italian study reported that 14.7% of patients (5/34) prematurely interrupted isotretinoin therapy during lockdown because of fear of COVID-19 infection.⁶ Data also suggest that college towns (akin to where I practice, rife with isotretinoin-eligible patients) reflected higher COVID-19 infection and death rates, likely due to dense cohabitation and intermittent migration of students and staff to and from campuses and within their communities.⁷ Approximately 30% of my patients on isotretinoin in the last 18 months reported having COVID-19 at some point during the pandemic, though no data exist to guide us on whether isotretinoin should be discontinued in this scenario; my patients typically continued the drug unless their primary health care team discouraged it, and in those cases, all of them resumed it after COVID-19 symptomatology resolved.

Last spring, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Food and Drug Administration announced that health care professionals who prescribe and/or dispense drugs subject to REMS with laboratory testing or imaging requirements should consider whether there are compelling reasons not to complete the required testing/imaging during the current public health emergency and use their best medical judgment in weighing the benefits and risks of continuing treatment in the absence of these tests. It also was stressed that prescribers should effectively communicate with their patients regarding these benefits, risks, and altered protocols.⁸ Further, the iPLEDGE program concurred that telemedicine was an acceptable visit type for both initiating and maintaining isotretinoin, and home pregnancy tests were valid for females of childbearing potential if an accurate testing date and results were communicated by patients to the prescriber in the required reporting windows.⁹ This allowed dermatologists to foster what was one of our most important roles as outpatient clinicians during the pandemic: to maintain normalcy, continuity, and support for as many patients as possible.

Isotretinoin and Telemedicine

During the pandemic, continuation of isotretinoin therapy proved easier than initiating it, given that patients could access and maintain a clear connection to the online visit platform, display understanding of the REMS mandates (along with a guardian present for a minor), perform a home pregnancy test and report the result followed by the quiz (for females), and collect the prescription in the allotted window. For new patients, the absence of a detailed in-person examination and rapport with the patient (and guardians when applicable) as well as misalignment of the date of iPLEDGE registration with the timing of the pregnancy test results and prescribing window were more onerous using digital or mailed versions of consent forms and photodocumentation of urine pregnancy test results. This tangle of requirements perpetuated missed prescribing windows, increased patient portal and phone messages, resulted in more time on the phone with the iPLEDGE help desk, and intensified angst for clinical staff.

These telemedicine visits also required validation of the patient’s geographic location to verify the billability of the visit and whether the patient was in a secure location to have a US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant conversation as well as the abstract notion that the timing and result of the pregnancy tests for females reflected a true nonpregnant state.^10,11 Verification of the pregnancy tests in these situations was approached by either the patient reporting the outcome verbally or displaying the pregnancy test kit result in a video or photograph form for the medical record, all of which leave room for error, doubt, and lower sensitivity than laboratory-based collection. That being said, the increased implementation of telemedicine visits during the pandemic sustained patient access, decreased cost with less laboratory testing and reduced time away from work or school, and resulted in high patient satisfaction with their care.¹² Additionally, it allowed providers to continue to more comfortably inch away from frequent in-person serologic cholesterol and hepatic testing during therapy based on mounting data that it is not indicated.¹³

Accordingly, the complicated concepts of trust, practicality, and sustainability for the safe and effective management of isotretinoin patients re-emerged. For example, prior to COVID-19, we trusted patients who said they were regularly taking their oral contraceptives or were truly practicing abstinence as a form of contraception. During the pandemic, we then added a layer of trust with home pregnancy test reporting. If the patient or guardian signed the isotretinoin consent form and understood the risks of the medication, ideally the physician-patient relationship fostered the optimal goals of honest conversation, adherence to the drug, safety, and clear skin. However, there is yet another trust assay: iPLEDGE, in turn, trusts that we are reporting patient data accurately, provoking us to reiterate questions we asked ourselves before the pandemic. Is the extra provider and staff clerical work and validation necessary, compounded by prior data that iPLEDGE’s capacity to limit pregnancy-related morbidity with isotretinoin has been called into question in the last decade?¹⁴ Do males need to be followed every month? Is laboratory monitoring still necessary for all isotretinoin candidates? Will post–COVID-19 data show that during various versions of the lockdown, an increased number of isotretinoin patients developed unmonitored morbidity, including transaminitis, hypertriglyceridemia, and an increase in pregnancies? How long will telemedicine visits for isotretinoin be reimbursable beyond the pandemic? Are there other models to enhance and improve isotretinoin teledermatology and compliance?¹⁵

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists’ experience managing high volumes of isotretinoin patients paired with the creativity to maintain meaningful (and truthful) patient connections and decrease administrative burden lie front and center in 2021. Because the COVID-19 pandemic remains ambient with a dearth of data to guide us, I pose the questions above as points for commiseration and catapults for future study, discussion, collaboration, and innovation. Perhaps the neo–COVID-19 world provided us with the spark we needed to metaphorically clean up the dusty isotretinoin tenets that have frayed our time and patience so we can maintain excellent care for this worthy population.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein

Amidst the myriad of disruptions and corollary solutions budding from the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, management of acne with isotretinoin underwent a makeover. Firstly, as with any pharmaceutical prescribed in the last 1 to 2 years, patients asked the compelling question, “Will this prescription put me at higher risk for COVID-19?”, resulting in a complex set of answers from both clinical and basic science perspectives. Further, the practical use of telemedicine for clinical visits and pregnancy test reporting altered the shape of isotretinoin physician-patient communication and follow-up. Finally, the combination of these circumstances spurred us to revisit common quandaries in prescribing this drug: Can we trust what patients tell us when they are taking isotretinoin? Do we need to monitor laboratory values and follow patients on isotretinoin as closely and as frequently as we have in the past? Does the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program of iPLEDGE hold true utility?

Impact of COVID-19 on Isotretinoin Use

Isotretinoin may have varying influence on the ease of host entry and virulence of COVID-19. Because the majority of patients experience some degree of mucous membrane desiccation on isotretinoin, it originally was postulated that disruption of the nasal mucosa, thereby uncovering the basal epithelial layer where angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors are expressed, could increase the risk for viral invasion, as ACE2 is the host receptor for COVID-19 entry.^1,2 On the other hand, a study of 672 medications and their effect on regulation of ACE2 levels stratified isotretinoin in the highest category of ACE2 downregulators, therefore theoretically preventing cellular entry and replication of the virus.³ In conferring with many of my colleagues and reviewing available literature, I found that these data did not summarily deter providers from initiating or continuing isotretinoin during the pandemic, and research is ongoing to particularly earmark isotretinoin as a possible COVID-19 therapy option.^4,5 Despite this, and despite the lower risk for COVID-19 in the customary isotretinoin adolescent and young adult age range, an Italian study reported that 14.7% of patients (5/34) prematurely interrupted isotretinoin therapy during lockdown because of fear of COVID-19 infection.⁶ Data also suggest that college towns (akin to where I practice, rife with isotretinoin-eligible patients) reflected higher COVID-19 infection and death rates, likely due to dense cohabitation and intermittent migration of students and staff to and from campuses and within their communities.⁷ Approximately 30% of my patients on isotretinoin in the last 18 months reported having COVID-19 at some point during the pandemic, though no data exist to guide us on whether isotretinoin should be discontinued in this scenario; my patients typically continued the drug unless their primary health care team discouraged it, and in those cases, all of them resumed it after COVID-19 symptomatology resolved.

Last spring, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Food and Drug Administration announced that health care professionals who prescribe and/or dispense drugs subject to REMS with laboratory testing or imaging requirements should consider whether there are compelling reasons not to complete the required testing/imaging during the current public health emergency and use their best medical judgment in weighing the benefits and risks of continuing treatment in the absence of these tests. It also was stressed that prescribers should effectively communicate with their patients regarding these benefits, risks, and altered protocols.⁸ Further, the iPLEDGE program concurred that telemedicine was an acceptable visit type for both initiating and maintaining isotretinoin, and home pregnancy tests were valid for females of childbearing potential if an accurate testing date and results were communicated by patients to the prescriber in the required reporting windows.⁹ This allowed dermatologists to foster what was one of our most important roles as outpatient clinicians during the pandemic: to maintain normalcy, continuity, and support for as many patients as possible.

Isotretinoin and Telemedicine

During the pandemic, continuation of isotretinoin therapy proved easier than initiating it, given that patients could access and maintain a clear connection to the online visit platform, display understanding of the REMS mandates (along with a guardian present for a minor), perform a home pregnancy test and report the result followed by the quiz (for females), and collect the prescription in the allotted window. For new patients, the absence of a detailed in-person examination and rapport with the patient (and guardians when applicable) as well as misalignment of the date of iPLEDGE registration with the timing of the pregnancy test results and prescribing window were more onerous using digital or mailed versions of consent forms and photodocumentation of urine pregnancy test results. This tangle of requirements perpetuated missed prescribing windows, increased patient portal and phone messages, resulted in more time on the phone with the iPLEDGE help desk, and intensified angst for clinical staff.

These telemedicine visits also required validation of the patient’s geographic location to verify the billability of the visit and whether the patient was in a secure location to have a US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant conversation as well as the abstract notion that the timing and result of the pregnancy tests for females reflected a true nonpregnant state.^10,11 Verification of the pregnancy tests in these situations was approached by either the patient reporting the outcome verbally or displaying the pregnancy test kit result in a video or photograph form for the medical record, all of which leave room for error, doubt, and lower sensitivity than laboratory-based collection. That being said, the increased implementation of telemedicine visits during the pandemic sustained patient access, decreased cost with less laboratory testing and reduced time away from work or school, and resulted in high patient satisfaction with their care.¹² Additionally, it allowed providers to continue to more comfortably inch away from frequent in-person serologic cholesterol and hepatic testing during therapy based on mounting data that it is not indicated.¹³

Accordingly, the complicated concepts of trust, practicality, and sustainability for the safe and effective management of isotretinoin patients re-emerged. For example, prior to COVID-19, we trusted patients who said they were regularly taking their oral contraceptives or were truly practicing abstinence as a form of contraception. During the pandemic, we then added a layer of trust with home pregnancy test reporting. If the patient or guardian signed the isotretinoin consent form and understood the risks of the medication, ideally the physician-patient relationship fostered the optimal goals of honest conversation, adherence to the drug, safety, and clear skin. However, there is yet another trust assay: iPLEDGE, in turn, trusts that we are reporting patient data accurately, provoking us to reiterate questions we asked ourselves before the pandemic. Is the extra provider and staff clerical work and validation necessary, compounded by prior data that iPLEDGE’s capacity to limit pregnancy-related morbidity with isotretinoin has been called into question in the last decade?¹⁴ Do males need to be followed every month? Is laboratory monitoring still necessary for all isotretinoin candidates? Will post–COVID-19 data show that during various versions of the lockdown, an increased number of isotretinoin patients developed unmonitored morbidity, including transaminitis, hypertriglyceridemia, and an increase in pregnancies? How long will telemedicine visits for isotretinoin be reimbursable beyond the pandemic? Are there other models to enhance and improve isotretinoin teledermatology and compliance?¹⁵

Final Thoughts

Dermatologists’ experience managing high volumes of isotretinoin patients paired with the creativity to maintain meaningful (and truthful) patient connections and decrease administrative burden lie front and center in 2021. Because the COVID-19 pandemic remains ambient with a dearth of data to guide us, I pose the questions above as points for commiseration and catapults for future study, discussion, collaboration, and innovation. Perhaps the neo–COVID-19 world provided us with the spark we needed to metaphorically clean up the dusty isotretinoin tenets that have frayed our time and patience so we can maintain excellent care for this worthy population.

Israeli officials are reporting a 30% decrease in the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. At the same time, protection against hospitalization and severe illness remains robust.

The country’s Ministry of Health data cited high levels of circulating Delta variant and a relaxation of public health measures in early June for the drop in the vaccine’s prevention of “breakthrough” cases from 94% to 64% in recent weeks.

However, it is important to consider the findings in context, experts cautioned.

“My overall take on this that the vaccine is highly protective against the endpoints that matter – hospitalization and severe disease,” Anna Durbin, MD, told this news organization.

“I was very pleasantly surprised with the very high efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease – even against the Delta variant,” added Dr. Durbin, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the high degree of protection against severe outcomes should be the focus.

“That’s the whole idea. You want to defend against COVID-19. So even if someone is infected, they don’t end up in the hospital or in the morgue,” he said in an interview.

Compared with an earlier report, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization fell slightly from 98% to 93%.

“For me, the fact that there is increased infection from the Delta variant after the vaccines such as Pfizer is of course a concern. But the positive news is that there is 93% prevention against severe disease or mortality,” added Dr. Mokdad, who is also professor of global health at University of Washington.

In addition, the absolute numbers remain relatively small. The Ministry of Health data show that, of the 63 Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide on July 3, 34 were in critical condition.
 

Unrealistic expectations?

People may have unrealistic expectations regarding breakthrough infections, Dr. Durbin said. “It seems that people are almost expecting ‘sterilizing immunity’ from these vaccines,” she said, explaining that would mean complete protection from infection.

Expectations may be high “because these vaccines have been so effective,” added Dr. Durbin, who is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health.

The higher the number of vaccinated residents, the more breakthrough cases will be reported, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston, wrote in her “Your Local Epidemiologist” blog.

This could apply to Israel, with an estimated 60% of adults in Israel fully vaccinated and 65% receiving at least one dose as of July 5, Our World in Data figures show.

How the updated figures were reported could be confusing, Dr. Jetelina said. Israel’s Health Minister Chezy Levy noted that “55% of the newly infected had been vaccinated” in a radio interview announcing the results.

“This language is important because it’s very different than ‘half of vaccinated people were infected,’ ” Dr. Jetelina noted.

Israel had a 7-day rolling average of 324 new confirmed COVID-19 cases as of July 5. Assuming 55% of these cases were among vaccinated people, that would mean 178 people experienced breakthrough infections.

In contrast, almost 6 million people in Israel are fully vaccinated. If 55% of them experienced breakthrough infections, the number would be much higher – more than 3 million.

Dr. Jetelina added that more details about the new Israel figures would be helpful, including the severity of COVID-19 among the vaccinated cases and breakdown of infections between adults and children.
 

Next steps

Israeli health officials are weighing the necessity of a third or booster dose of the vaccine. Whether they will reinstate public health measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 also remains unknown.

Going forward, Israel intends to study whether factors such as age, comorbidities, or time since immunization affect risk for breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19.

“We want to prevent people from getting hospitalized, seriously ill, and of course, dying. It’s encouraging these vaccines will be able to have a high impact on those outcomes,” Dr. Durbin said. “We just need to get people vaccinated.”
 

A call for better global surveillance

A global surveillance system is a potential solution to track and respond to the growing threat of the Delta variant and other variants of concern, Scott P. Layne, MD, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, wrote in a July 7, 2021, editorial in Science Translational Medicine.

One goal, Dr. Layne said in an interview, is to highlight “the compelling need for a new global COVID-19 program of surveillance and offer a blueprint for building it.” A second aim is to promote global cooperation among key advisers and leaders in the G7, G20, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations.

“It’s an uphill struggle with superpower discords, global warming, cybersecurity, and pandemics all competing for finite attention,” Dr. Layne said. “However, what other options do we have for taming the so-called forever virus?”

Dr. Mokdad and Dr. Jetelina had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Durban disclosed she was the site primary investigator for the phase 3 AstraZeneca vaccine trial and an investigator on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.

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

Israeli officials are reporting a 30% decrease in the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. At the same time, protection against hospitalization and severe illness remains robust.

The country’s Ministry of Health data cited high levels of circulating Delta variant and a relaxation of public health measures in early June for the drop in the vaccine’s prevention of “breakthrough” cases from 94% to 64% in recent weeks.

However, it is important to consider the findings in context, experts cautioned.

“My overall take on this that the vaccine is highly protective against the endpoints that matter – hospitalization and severe disease,” Anna Durbin, MD, told this news organization.

“I was very pleasantly surprised with the very high efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease – even against the Delta variant,” added Dr. Durbin, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the high degree of protection against severe outcomes should be the focus.

“That’s the whole idea. You want to defend against COVID-19. So even if someone is infected, they don’t end up in the hospital or in the morgue,” he said in an interview.

Compared with an earlier report, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization fell slightly from 98% to 93%.

“For me, the fact that there is increased infection from the Delta variant after the vaccines such as Pfizer is of course a concern. But the positive news is that there is 93% prevention against severe disease or mortality,” added Dr. Mokdad, who is also professor of global health at University of Washington.

In addition, the absolute numbers remain relatively small. The Ministry of Health data show that, of the 63 Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide on July 3, 34 were in critical condition.
 

Unrealistic expectations?

People may have unrealistic expectations regarding breakthrough infections, Dr. Durbin said. “It seems that people are almost expecting ‘sterilizing immunity’ from these vaccines,” she said, explaining that would mean complete protection from infection.

Expectations may be high “because these vaccines have been so effective,” added Dr. Durbin, who is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health.

The higher the number of vaccinated residents, the more breakthrough cases will be reported, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston, wrote in her “Your Local Epidemiologist” blog.

This could apply to Israel, with an estimated 60% of adults in Israel fully vaccinated and 65% receiving at least one dose as of July 5, Our World in Data figures show.

How the updated figures were reported could be confusing, Dr. Jetelina said. Israel’s Health Minister Chezy Levy noted that “55% of the newly infected had been vaccinated” in a radio interview announcing the results.

“This language is important because it’s very different than ‘half of vaccinated people were infected,’ ” Dr. Jetelina noted.

Israel had a 7-day rolling average of 324 new confirmed COVID-19 cases as of July 5. Assuming 55% of these cases were among vaccinated people, that would mean 178 people experienced breakthrough infections.

In contrast, almost 6 million people in Israel are fully vaccinated. If 55% of them experienced breakthrough infections, the number would be much higher – more than 3 million.

Dr. Jetelina added that more details about the new Israel figures would be helpful, including the severity of COVID-19 among the vaccinated cases and breakdown of infections between adults and children.
 

Next steps

Israeli health officials are weighing the necessity of a third or booster dose of the vaccine. Whether they will reinstate public health measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 also remains unknown.

Going forward, Israel intends to study whether factors such as age, comorbidities, or time since immunization affect risk for breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19.

“We want to prevent people from getting hospitalized, seriously ill, and of course, dying. It’s encouraging these vaccines will be able to have a high impact on those outcomes,” Dr. Durbin said. “We just need to get people vaccinated.”
 

A call for better global surveillance

A global surveillance system is a potential solution to track and respond to the growing threat of the Delta variant and other variants of concern, Scott P. Layne, MD, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, wrote in a July 7, 2021, editorial in Science Translational Medicine.

One goal, Dr. Layne said in an interview, is to highlight “the compelling need for a new global COVID-19 program of surveillance and offer a blueprint for building it.” A second aim is to promote global cooperation among key advisers and leaders in the G7, G20, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations.

“It’s an uphill struggle with superpower discords, global warming, cybersecurity, and pandemics all competing for finite attention,” Dr. Layne said. “However, what other options do we have for taming the so-called forever virus?”

Dr. Mokdad and Dr. Jetelina had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Durban disclosed she was the site primary investigator for the phase 3 AstraZeneca vaccine trial and an investigator on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.

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

Israeli officials are reporting a 30% decrease in the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. At the same time, protection against hospitalization and severe illness remains robust.

The country’s Ministry of Health data cited high levels of circulating Delta variant and a relaxation of public health measures in early June for the drop in the vaccine’s prevention of “breakthrough” cases from 94% to 64% in recent weeks.

However, it is important to consider the findings in context, experts cautioned.

“My overall take on this that the vaccine is highly protective against the endpoints that matter – hospitalization and severe disease,” Anna Durbin, MD, told this news organization.

“I was very pleasantly surprised with the very high efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease – even against the Delta variant,” added Dr. Durbin, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed that the high degree of protection against severe outcomes should be the focus.

“That’s the whole idea. You want to defend against COVID-19. So even if someone is infected, they don’t end up in the hospital or in the morgue,” he said in an interview.

Compared with an earlier report, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine against hospitalization fell slightly from 98% to 93%.

“For me, the fact that there is increased infection from the Delta variant after the vaccines such as Pfizer is of course a concern. But the positive news is that there is 93% prevention against severe disease or mortality,” added Dr. Mokdad, who is also professor of global health at University of Washington.

In addition, the absolute numbers remain relatively small. The Ministry of Health data show that, of the 63 Israelis hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide on July 3, 34 were in critical condition.
 

Unrealistic expectations?

People may have unrealistic expectations regarding breakthrough infections, Dr. Durbin said. “It seems that people are almost expecting ‘sterilizing immunity’ from these vaccines,” she said, explaining that would mean complete protection from infection.

Expectations may be high “because these vaccines have been so effective,” added Dr. Durbin, who is also affiliated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health.

The higher the number of vaccinated residents, the more breakthrough cases will be reported, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology, human genetics, and environmental sciences at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston, wrote in her “Your Local Epidemiologist” blog.

This could apply to Israel, with an estimated 60% of adults in Israel fully vaccinated and 65% receiving at least one dose as of July 5, Our World in Data figures show.

How the updated figures were reported could be confusing, Dr. Jetelina said. Israel’s Health Minister Chezy Levy noted that “55% of the newly infected had been vaccinated” in a radio interview announcing the results.

“This language is important because it’s very different than ‘half of vaccinated people were infected,’ ” Dr. Jetelina noted.

Israel had a 7-day rolling average of 324 new confirmed COVID-19 cases as of July 5. Assuming 55% of these cases were among vaccinated people, that would mean 178 people experienced breakthrough infections.

In contrast, almost 6 million people in Israel are fully vaccinated. If 55% of them experienced breakthrough infections, the number would be much higher – more than 3 million.

Dr. Jetelina added that more details about the new Israel figures would be helpful, including the severity of COVID-19 among the vaccinated cases and breakdown of infections between adults and children.
 

Next steps

Israeli health officials are weighing the necessity of a third or booster dose of the vaccine. Whether they will reinstate public health measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 also remains unknown.

Going forward, Israel intends to study whether factors such as age, comorbidities, or time since immunization affect risk for breakthrough infections among people vaccinated against COVID-19.

“We want to prevent people from getting hospitalized, seriously ill, and of course, dying. It’s encouraging these vaccines will be able to have a high impact on those outcomes,” Dr. Durbin said. “We just need to get people vaccinated.”
 

A call for better global surveillance

A global surveillance system is a potential solution to track and respond to the growing threat of the Delta variant and other variants of concern, Scott P. Layne, MD, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, MD, PhD, wrote in a July 7, 2021, editorial in Science Translational Medicine.

One goal, Dr. Layne said in an interview, is to highlight “the compelling need for a new global COVID-19 program of surveillance and offer a blueprint for building it.” A second aim is to promote global cooperation among key advisers and leaders in the G7, G20, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations.

“It’s an uphill struggle with superpower discords, global warming, cybersecurity, and pandemics all competing for finite attention,” Dr. Layne said. “However, what other options do we have for taming the so-called forever virus?”

Dr. Mokdad and Dr. Jetelina had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Durban disclosed she was the site primary investigator for the phase 3 AstraZeneca vaccine trial and an investigator on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial.

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

People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.

In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.

None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.

The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.

“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.

That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.

The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.

“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.

For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.

In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.

A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.

In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).

For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.

“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.

That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.

But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.

If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.

That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.

But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.

In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.

Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.

In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.

None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.

The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.

“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.

That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.

The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.

“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.

For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.

In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.

A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.

In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).

For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.

“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.

That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.

But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.

If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.

That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.

But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.

In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.

Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.

In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.

None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.

The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.

“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.

That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.

The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.

“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.

For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.

In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.

A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.

In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).

For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.

“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.

That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.

But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.

If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.

That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.

But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.

In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.

Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most of us are familiar with the good news: In recent weeks, rates of COVID-19 infection and death have plummeted in California, falling to levels not seen since the early days of the pandemic. The average number of new COVID infections reported each day dropped by an astounding 98% from December to June, according to figures from the California Department of Public Health.

And bolstering that trend, nearly 70% of Californians 12 and older are partially or fully vaccinated.

But state health officials are still reporting nearly 1,000 new COVID cases and more than 2 dozen COVID-related deaths per day. So, where does COVID continue to simmer in California? And why?

An analysis of state data shows some clear patterns at this stage of the pandemic: As vaccination rates rose across the state, the overall numbers of cases and deaths plunged. But within that broader trend are pronounced regional discrepancies. Counties with relatively low rates of vaccination reported much higher rates of COVID infections and deaths in May and June than counties with high vaccination rates.

There were about 182 new COVID infections per 100,000 residents from May 1 to June 18 in California counties where fewer than half of residents age 12 and older had received at least one vaccine dose, CDPH data show. By comparison, there were about 102 COVID infections per 100,000 residents in counties where more than two-thirds of residents 12 and up had gotten at least one dose.

“If you live in an area that has low vaccination rates and you have a few people who start to develop a disease, it’s going to spread quickly among those who aren’t vaccinated,” said Rita Burke, PhD, assistant professor of clinical preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Burke noted that the highly contagious Delta variant of the coronavirus now circulating in California amplifies the threat of serious outbreaks in areas with low vaccination rates.

The regional discrepancies in COVID-related deaths are also striking. There were about 3.2 COVID-related deaths per 100,000 residents from May 1 to June 18 in counties where first-dose vaccination rates were below 50%. That is almost twice as high as the death rate in counties where more than two-thirds of residents had at least one dose.

While the pattern is clear, there are exceptions. A couple of sparsely populated mountain counties with low vaccination rates – Trinity and Mariposa – also had relatively low rates of new infections in May and June. Likewise, a few suburban counties with high vaccination rates – among them Sonoma and Contra Costa – had relatively high rates of new infections.

“There are three things that are going on,” said George Rutherford, MD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “One is the vaccine – very important, but not the whole story. One is naturally acquired immunity, which is huge in some places.” A third, he said, is people still managing to evade infection, whether by taking precautions or simply by living in areas with few infections.

As of June 18, about 67% of Californians age 12 and older had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, according to the state health department. But that masks a wide variance among the state’s 58 counties. In 14 counties, for example, fewer than half of residents 12 and older had received a shot. In 19 counties, more than two-thirds had.

The counties with low vaccination rates are largely rugged and rural. Nearly all are politically conservative. In January, about 6% of the state’s COVID infections were in the 23 counties where a majority of voters cast ballots for President Donald Trump in November. By May and June, that figure had risen to 11%.

While surveys indicate politics plays a role in vaccine hesitancy in many communities, access also remains an issue in many of California’s rural outposts. It can be hard, or at least inconvenient, for people who live far from the nearest medical facility to get two shots a month apart.

“If you have to drive 30 minutes out to the nearest vaccination site, you may not be as inclined to do that versus if it’s 5 minutes from your house,” Dr. Burke said. “And so we, the public health community, recognize that and have really made a concerted effort in order to eliminate or alleviate that access issue.”

Many of the counties with low vaccination rates had relatively low infection rates in the early months of the pandemic, largely thanks to their remoteness. But, as COVID reaches those communities, that lack of prior exposure and acquired immunity magnifies their vulnerability, Dr. Rutherford said. “We’re going to see cases where people are unvaccinated or where there’s not been a big background level of immunity already.”

As it becomes clearer that new infections will be disproportionately concentrated in areas with low vaccination rates, state officials are working to persuade hesitant Californians to get a vaccine, even introducing a vaccine lottery.

But most persuasive are friends and family members who can help counter the disinformation rampant in some communities, said Lorena Garcia, DrPH, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis. Belittling people for their hesitancy or getting into a political argument likely won’t work.

When talking to her own skeptical relatives, Dr. Garcia avoided politics: “I just explained any questions that they had.”

“Vaccines are a good part of our life,” she said. “It’s something that we’ve done since we were babies. So, it’s just something we’re going to do again.”

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

Most of us are familiar with the good news: In recent weeks, rates of COVID-19 infection and death have plummeted in California, falling to levels not seen since the early days of the pandemic. The average number of new COVID infections reported each day dropped by an astounding 98% from December to June, according to figures from the California Department of Public Health.

And bolstering that trend, nearly 70% of Californians 12 and older are partially or fully vaccinated.

But state health officials are still reporting nearly 1,000 new COVID cases and more than 2 dozen COVID-related deaths per day. So, where does COVID continue to simmer in California? And why?

An analysis of state data shows some clear patterns at this stage of the pandemic: As vaccination rates rose across the state, the overall numbers of cases and deaths plunged. But within that broader trend are pronounced regional discrepancies. Counties with relatively low rates of vaccination reported much higher rates of COVID infections and deaths in May and June than counties with high vaccination rates.

There were about 182 new COVID infections per 100,000 residents from May 1 to June 18 in California counties where fewer than half of residents age 12 and older had received at least one vaccine dose, CDPH data show. By comparison, there were about 102 COVID infections per 100,000 residents in counties where more than two-thirds of residents 12 and up had gotten at least one dose.

“If you live in an area that has low vaccination rates and you have a few people who start to develop a disease, it’s going to spread quickly among those who aren’t vaccinated,” said Rita Burke, PhD, assistant professor of clinical preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Burke noted that the highly contagious Delta variant of the coronavirus now circulating in California amplifies the threat of serious outbreaks in areas with low vaccination rates.

The regional discrepancies in COVID-related deaths are also striking. There were about 3.2 COVID-related deaths per 100,000 residents from May 1 to June 18 in counties where first-dose vaccination rates were below 50%. That is almost twice as high as the death rate in counties where more than two-thirds of residents had at least one dose.

While the pattern is clear, there are exceptions. A couple of sparsely populated mountain counties with low vaccination rates – Trinity and Mariposa – also had relatively low rates of new infections in May and June. Likewise, a few suburban counties with high vaccination rates – among them Sonoma and Contra Costa – had relatively high rates of new infections.

“There are three things that are going on,” said George Rutherford, MD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “One is the vaccine – very important, but not the whole story. One is naturally acquired immunity, which is huge in some places.” A third, he said, is people still managing to evade infection, whether by taking precautions or simply by living in areas with few infections.

As of June 18, about 67% of Californians age 12 and older had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, according to the state health department. But that masks a wide variance among the state’s 58 counties. In 14 counties, for example, fewer than half of residents 12 and older had received a shot. In 19 counties, more than two-thirds had.

The counties with low vaccination rates are largely rugged and rural. Nearly all are politically conservative. In January, about 6% of the state’s COVID infections were in the 23 counties where a majority of voters cast ballots for President Donald Trump in November. By May and June, that figure had risen to 11%.

While surveys indicate politics plays a role in vaccine hesitancy in many communities, access also remains an issue in many of California’s rural outposts. It can be hard, or at least inconvenient, for people who live far from the nearest medical facility to get two shots a month apart.

“If you have to drive 30 minutes out to the nearest vaccination site, you may not be as inclined to do that versus if it’s 5 minutes from your house,” Dr. Burke said. “And so we, the public health community, recognize that and have really made a concerted effort in order to eliminate or alleviate that access issue.”

Many of the counties with low vaccination rates had relatively low infection rates in the early months of the pandemic, largely thanks to their remoteness. But, as COVID reaches those communities, that lack of prior exposure and acquired immunity magnifies their vulnerability, Dr. Rutherford said. “We’re going to see cases where people are unvaccinated or where there’s not been a big background level of immunity already.”

As it becomes clearer that new infections will be disproportionately concentrated in areas with low vaccination rates, state officials are working to persuade hesitant Californians to get a vaccine, even introducing a vaccine lottery.

But most persuasive are friends and family members who can help counter the disinformation rampant in some communities, said Lorena Garcia, DrPH, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis. Belittling people for their hesitancy or getting into a political argument likely won’t work.

When talking to her own skeptical relatives, Dr. Garcia avoided politics: “I just explained any questions that they had.”

“Vaccines are a good part of our life,” she said. “It’s something that we’ve done since we were babies. So, it’s just something we’re going to do again.”

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

Most of us are familiar with the good news: In recent weeks, rates of COVID-19 infection and death have plummeted in California, falling to levels not seen since the early days of the pandemic. The average number of new COVID infections reported each day dropped by an astounding 98% from December to June, according to figures from the California Department of Public Health.

And bolstering that trend, nearly 70% of Californians 12 and older are partially or fully vaccinated.

But state health officials are still reporting nearly 1,000 new COVID cases and more than 2 dozen COVID-related deaths per day. So, where does COVID continue to simmer in California? And why?

An analysis of state data shows some clear patterns at this stage of the pandemic: As vaccination rates rose across the state, the overall numbers of cases and deaths plunged. But within that broader trend are pronounced regional discrepancies. Counties with relatively low rates of vaccination reported much higher rates of COVID infections and deaths in May and June than counties with high vaccination rates.

There were about 182 new COVID infections per 100,000 residents from May 1 to June 18 in California counties where fewer than half of residents age 12 and older had received at least one vaccine dose, CDPH data show. By comparison, there were about 102 COVID infections per 100,000 residents in counties where more than two-thirds of residents 12 and up had gotten at least one dose.

“If you live in an area that has low vaccination rates and you have a few people who start to develop a disease, it’s going to spread quickly among those who aren’t vaccinated,” said Rita Burke, PhD, assistant professor of clinical preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Burke noted that the highly contagious Delta variant of the coronavirus now circulating in California amplifies the threat of serious outbreaks in areas with low vaccination rates.

The regional discrepancies in COVID-related deaths are also striking. There were about 3.2 COVID-related deaths per 100,000 residents from May 1 to June 18 in counties where first-dose vaccination rates were below 50%. That is almost twice as high as the death rate in counties where more than two-thirds of residents had at least one dose.

While the pattern is clear, there are exceptions. A couple of sparsely populated mountain counties with low vaccination rates – Trinity and Mariposa – also had relatively low rates of new infections in May and June. Likewise, a few suburban counties with high vaccination rates – among them Sonoma and Contra Costa – had relatively high rates of new infections.

“There are three things that are going on,” said George Rutherford, MD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “One is the vaccine – very important, but not the whole story. One is naturally acquired immunity, which is huge in some places.” A third, he said, is people still managing to evade infection, whether by taking precautions or simply by living in areas with few infections.

As of June 18, about 67% of Californians age 12 and older had received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, according to the state health department. But that masks a wide variance among the state’s 58 counties. In 14 counties, for example, fewer than half of residents 12 and older had received a shot. In 19 counties, more than two-thirds had.

The counties with low vaccination rates are largely rugged and rural. Nearly all are politically conservative. In January, about 6% of the state’s COVID infections were in the 23 counties where a majority of voters cast ballots for President Donald Trump in November. By May and June, that figure had risen to 11%.

While surveys indicate politics plays a role in vaccine hesitancy in many communities, access also remains an issue in many of California’s rural outposts. It can be hard, or at least inconvenient, for people who live far from the nearest medical facility to get two shots a month apart.

“If you have to drive 30 minutes out to the nearest vaccination site, you may not be as inclined to do that versus if it’s 5 minutes from your house,” Dr. Burke said. “And so we, the public health community, recognize that and have really made a concerted effort in order to eliminate or alleviate that access issue.”

Many of the counties with low vaccination rates had relatively low infection rates in the early months of the pandemic, largely thanks to their remoteness. But, as COVID reaches those communities, that lack of prior exposure and acquired immunity magnifies their vulnerability, Dr. Rutherford said. “We’re going to see cases where people are unvaccinated or where there’s not been a big background level of immunity already.”

As it becomes clearer that new infections will be disproportionately concentrated in areas with low vaccination rates, state officials are working to persuade hesitant Californians to get a vaccine, even introducing a vaccine lottery.

But most persuasive are friends and family members who can help counter the disinformation rampant in some communities, said Lorena Garcia, DrPH, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis. Belittling people for their hesitancy or getting into a political argument likely won’t work.

When talking to her own skeptical relatives, Dr. Garcia avoided politics: “I just explained any questions that they had.”

“Vaccines are a good part of our life,” she said. “It’s something that we’ve done since we were babies. So, it’s just something we’re going to do again.”

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