User login
Anxiety, your brain, and long COVID: What the research says
Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found.
Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity.
While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.
Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
Common conditions
The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression.
As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more.
Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk.
Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk
A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.
The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection.
“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.
Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.
Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.
COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes
Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.
In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID. Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety.
Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.
The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”
The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”
The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
Explaining the links
Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”
Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”
Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not.
The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed.
In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response.
Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID
Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.
The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
Long-term solutions
Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found.
Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity.
While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.
Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
Common conditions
The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression.
As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more.
Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk.
Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk
A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.
The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection.
“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.
Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.
Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.
COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes
Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.
In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID. Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety.
Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.
The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”
The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”
The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
Explaining the links
Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”
Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”
Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not.
The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed.
In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response.
Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID
Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.
The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
Long-term solutions
Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found.
Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity.
While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.
Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
Common conditions
The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression.
As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more.
Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk.
Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk
A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.
The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection.
“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.
Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.
Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.
COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes
Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.
In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID. Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety.
Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.
The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”
The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”
The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
Explaining the links
Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”
Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”
Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not.
The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed.
In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response.
Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID
Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.
The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
Long-term solutions
Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID vaccines safe for young children, study finds
TOPLINE:
COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
- Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
- Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.
TAKEAWAY:
- One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.
DISCLOSURES:
A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
- Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
- Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.
TAKEAWAY:
- One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.
DISCLOSURES:
A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
- Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
- Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.
TAKEAWAY:
- One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.
DISCLOSURES:
A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PEDIATRICS
We may need a new defense against new COVID variants
At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.
Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.
The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.
Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.
This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.
Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.
The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.
Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.
The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.
Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.
This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.
Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.
The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.
Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.
The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.
Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.
This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.
Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.
The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID nonvaccination linked with avoidable hospitalizations
A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.
“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.
The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake
While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.
The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19.
During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.”
The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).
The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients.
The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.
“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.”
Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.
The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
Economic benefit underestimated
Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.
A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”
Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”
The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.
“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.
The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake
While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.
The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19.
During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.”
The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).
The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients.
The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.
“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.”
Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.
The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
Economic benefit underestimated
Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.
A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”
Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”
The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.
“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.
The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake
While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.
The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19.
During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.”
The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).
The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients.
The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.
“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.”
Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.
The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
Economic benefit underestimated
Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.
A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”
Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”
The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
One in 10 people who had Omicron got long COVID: Study
About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA.
The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID.
“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection the National Institutes of Health said in a news release.
People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.
Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID.
For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.
The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.
The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion.
Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t.
The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.
“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA.
The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID.
“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection the National Institutes of Health said in a news release.
People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.
Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID.
For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.
The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.
The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion.
Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t.
The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.
“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA.
The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID.
“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection the National Institutes of Health said in a news release.
People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.
Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID.
For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.
The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.
The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion.
Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t.
The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.
“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA
Study finds COVID-19 boosters don’t increase miscarriage risk
COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.
They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.
The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.
“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.
The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”
The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.
They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.
The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.
“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.
The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”
The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.
They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.
The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.
“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.
The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”
The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
COVID boosters effective, but not for long
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.
I am here today to talk about the effectiveness of COVID vaccine boosters in the midst of 2023. The reason I want to talk about this isn’t necessarily to dig into exactly how effective vaccines are. This is an area that’s been trod upon multiple times. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about a neat study design called the “test-negative case-control” design, which has some unique properties when you’re trying to evaluate the effect of something outside of the context of a randomized trial.
So, just a little bit of background to remind everyone where we are. These are the number of doses of COVID vaccines administered over time throughout the pandemic.
You can see that it’s stratified by age. The orange lines are adults ages 18-49, for example. You can see a big wave of vaccination when the vaccine first came out at the start of 2021. Then subsequently, you can see smaller waves after the first and second booster authorizations, and maybe a bit of a pickup, particularly among older adults, when the bivalent boosters were authorized. But still very little overall pickup of the bivalent booster, compared with the monovalent vaccines, which might suggest vaccine fatigue going on this far into the pandemic. But it’s important to try to understand exactly how effective those new boosters are, at least at this point in time.
I’m talking about Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Booster Dose Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Attributable to Omicron BA.5– and XBB/XBB.1.5–Related Sublineages Among Immunocompetent Adults – Increasing Community Access to Testing Program, United States, December 2022–January 2023, which came out in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report very recently, which uses this test-negative case-control design to evaluate the ability of bivalent mRNA vaccines to prevent hospitalization.
The question is: Does receipt of a bivalent COVID vaccine booster prevent hospitalizations, ICU stay, or death? That may not be the question that is of interest to everyone. I know people are interested in symptoms, missed work, and transmission, but this paper was looking at hospitalization, ICU stay, and death.
What’s kind of tricky here is that the data they’re using are in people who are hospitalized with various diseases. You might look at that on the surface and say: “Well, you can’t – that’s impossible.” But you can, actually, with this cool test-negative case-control design.
Here’s basically how it works. You take a population of people who are hospitalized and confirmed to have COVID. Some of them will be vaccinated and some of them will be unvaccinated. And the proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated people doesn’t tell you very much because it depends on how that compares with the rates in the general population, for instance. Let me clarify this. If 100% of the population were vaccinated, then 100% of the people hospitalized with COVID would be vaccinated. That doesn’t mean vaccines are bad. Put another way, if 90% of the population were vaccinated and 60% of people hospitalized with COVID were vaccinated, that would actually show that the vaccines were working to some extent, all else being equal. So it’s not just the raw percentages that tell you anything. Some people are vaccinated, some people aren’t. You need to understand what the baseline rate is.
The test-negative case-control design looks at people who are hospitalized without COVID. Now who those people are (who the controls are, in this case) is something you really need to think about. In the case of this CDC study, they used people who were hospitalized with COVID-like illnesses – flu-like illnesses, respiratory illnesses, pneumonia, influenza, etc. This is a pretty good idea because it standardizes a little bit for people who have access to healthcare. They can get to a hospital and they’re the type of person who would go to a hospital when they’re feeling sick. That’s a better control than the general population overall, which is something I like about this design.
Some of those people who don’t have COVID (they’re in the hospital for flu or whatever) will have been vaccinated for COVID, and some will not have been vaccinated for COVID. And of course, we don’t expect COVID vaccines necessarily to protect against the flu or pneumonia, but that gives us a way to standardize.
If you look at these Venn diagrams, I’ve got vaccinated/unvaccinated being exactly the same proportion, which would suggest that you’re just as likely to be hospitalized with COVID if you’re vaccinated as you are to be hospitalized with some other respiratory illness, which suggests that the vaccine isn’t particularly effective.
However, if you saw something like this, looking at all those patients with flu and other non-COVID illnesses, a lot more of them had been vaccinated for COVID. What that tells you is that we’re seeing fewer vaccinated people hospitalized with COVID than we would expect because we have this standardization from other respiratory infections. We expect this many vaccinated people because that’s how many vaccinated people there are who show up with flu. But in the COVID population, there are fewer, and that would suggest that the vaccines are effective. So that is the test-negative case-control design. You can do the same thing with ICU stays and death.
There are some assumptions here which you might already be thinking about. The most important one is that vaccination status is not associated with the risk for the disease. I always think of older people in this context. During the pandemic, at least in the United States, older people were much more likely to be vaccinated but were also much more likely to contract COVID and be hospitalized with COVID. The test-negative design actually accounts for this in some sense, because older people are also more likely to be hospitalized for things like flu and pneumonia. So there’s some control there.
But to the extent that older people are uniquely susceptible to COVID compared with other respiratory illnesses, that would bias your results to make the vaccines look worse. So the standard approach here is to adjust for these things. I think the CDC adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and a few other things to settle down and see how effective the vaccines were.
Let’s get to a worked example.
This is the actual data from the CDC paper. They had 6,907 individuals who were hospitalized with COVID, and 26% of them were unvaccinated. What’s the baseline rate that we would expect to be unvaccinated? A total of 59,234 individuals were hospitalized with a non-COVID respiratory illness, and 23% of them were unvaccinated. So you can see that there were more unvaccinated people than you would think in the COVID group. In other words, fewer vaccinated people, which suggests that the vaccine works to some degree because it’s keeping some people out of the hospital.
Now, 26% versus 23% is not a very impressive difference. But it gets more interesting when you break it down by the type of vaccine and how long ago the individual was vaccinated.
Let’s walk through the “all” group on this figure. What you can see is the calculated vaccine effectiveness. If you look at just the monovalent vaccine here, we see a 20% vaccine effectiveness. This means that you’re preventing 20% of hospitalizations basically due to COVID by people getting vaccinated. That’s okay but it’s certainly not anything to write home about. But we see much better vaccine effectiveness with the bivalent vaccine if it had been received within 60 days.
This compares people who received the bivalent vaccine within 60 days in the COVID group and the non-COVID group. The concern that the vaccine was given very recently affects both groups equally so it shouldn’t result in bias there. You see a step-off in vaccine effectiveness from 60 days, 60-120 days, and greater than 120 days. This is 4 months, and you’ve gone from 60% to 20%. When you break that down by age, you can see a similar pattern in the 18-to-65 group and potentially some more protection the greater than 65 age group.
Why is vaccine efficacy going down? The study doesn’t tell us, but we can hypothesize that this might be an immunologic effect – the antibodies or the protective T cells are waning over time. This could also reflect changes in the virus in the environment as the virus seeks to evade certain immune responses. But overall, this suggests that waiting a year between booster doses may leave you exposed for quite some time, although the take-home here is that bivalent vaccines in general are probably a good idea for the proportion of people who haven’t gotten them.
When we look at critical illness and death, the numbers look a little bit better.
You can see that bivalent is better than monovalent – certainly pretty good if you’ve received it within 60 days. It does tend to wane a little bit, but not nearly as much. You’ve still got about 50% vaccine efficacy beyond 120 days when we’re looking at critical illness, which is stays in the ICU and death.
The overriding thing to think about when we think about vaccine policy is that the way you get immunized against COVID is either by vaccine or by getting infected with COVID, or both.
This really interesting graph from the CDC (although it’s updated only through quarter three of 2022) shows the proportion of Americans, based on routine lab tests, who have varying degrees of protection against COVID. What you can see is that, by quarter three of 2022, just 3.6% of people who had blood drawn at a commercial laboratory had no evidence of infection or vaccination. In other words, almost no one was totally naive. Then 26% of people had never been infected – they only have vaccine antibodies – plus 22% of people had only been infected but had never been vaccinated. And then 50% of people had both. So there’s a tremendous amount of existing immunity out there.
The really interesting question about future vaccination and future booster doses is, how does it work on the background of this pattern? The CDC study doesn’t tell us, and I don’t think they have the data to tell us the vaccine efficacy in these different groups. Is it more effective in people who have only had an infection, for example? Is it more effective in people who have only had vaccination versus people who had both, or people who have no protection whatsoever? Those are the really interesting questions that need to be answered going forward as vaccine policy gets developed in the future.
I hope this was a helpful primer on how the test-negative case-control design can answer questions that seem a little bit unanswerable.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.
I am here today to talk about the effectiveness of COVID vaccine boosters in the midst of 2023. The reason I want to talk about this isn’t necessarily to dig into exactly how effective vaccines are. This is an area that’s been trod upon multiple times. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about a neat study design called the “test-negative case-control” design, which has some unique properties when you’re trying to evaluate the effect of something outside of the context of a randomized trial.
So, just a little bit of background to remind everyone where we are. These are the number of doses of COVID vaccines administered over time throughout the pandemic.
You can see that it’s stratified by age. The orange lines are adults ages 18-49, for example. You can see a big wave of vaccination when the vaccine first came out at the start of 2021. Then subsequently, you can see smaller waves after the first and second booster authorizations, and maybe a bit of a pickup, particularly among older adults, when the bivalent boosters were authorized. But still very little overall pickup of the bivalent booster, compared with the monovalent vaccines, which might suggest vaccine fatigue going on this far into the pandemic. But it’s important to try to understand exactly how effective those new boosters are, at least at this point in time.
I’m talking about Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Booster Dose Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Attributable to Omicron BA.5– and XBB/XBB.1.5–Related Sublineages Among Immunocompetent Adults – Increasing Community Access to Testing Program, United States, December 2022–January 2023, which came out in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report very recently, which uses this test-negative case-control design to evaluate the ability of bivalent mRNA vaccines to prevent hospitalization.
The question is: Does receipt of a bivalent COVID vaccine booster prevent hospitalizations, ICU stay, or death? That may not be the question that is of interest to everyone. I know people are interested in symptoms, missed work, and transmission, but this paper was looking at hospitalization, ICU stay, and death.
What’s kind of tricky here is that the data they’re using are in people who are hospitalized with various diseases. You might look at that on the surface and say: “Well, you can’t – that’s impossible.” But you can, actually, with this cool test-negative case-control design.
Here’s basically how it works. You take a population of people who are hospitalized and confirmed to have COVID. Some of them will be vaccinated and some of them will be unvaccinated. And the proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated people doesn’t tell you very much because it depends on how that compares with the rates in the general population, for instance. Let me clarify this. If 100% of the population were vaccinated, then 100% of the people hospitalized with COVID would be vaccinated. That doesn’t mean vaccines are bad. Put another way, if 90% of the population were vaccinated and 60% of people hospitalized with COVID were vaccinated, that would actually show that the vaccines were working to some extent, all else being equal. So it’s not just the raw percentages that tell you anything. Some people are vaccinated, some people aren’t. You need to understand what the baseline rate is.
The test-negative case-control design looks at people who are hospitalized without COVID. Now who those people are (who the controls are, in this case) is something you really need to think about. In the case of this CDC study, they used people who were hospitalized with COVID-like illnesses – flu-like illnesses, respiratory illnesses, pneumonia, influenza, etc. This is a pretty good idea because it standardizes a little bit for people who have access to healthcare. They can get to a hospital and they’re the type of person who would go to a hospital when they’re feeling sick. That’s a better control than the general population overall, which is something I like about this design.
Some of those people who don’t have COVID (they’re in the hospital for flu or whatever) will have been vaccinated for COVID, and some will not have been vaccinated for COVID. And of course, we don’t expect COVID vaccines necessarily to protect against the flu or pneumonia, but that gives us a way to standardize.
If you look at these Venn diagrams, I’ve got vaccinated/unvaccinated being exactly the same proportion, which would suggest that you’re just as likely to be hospitalized with COVID if you’re vaccinated as you are to be hospitalized with some other respiratory illness, which suggests that the vaccine isn’t particularly effective.
However, if you saw something like this, looking at all those patients with flu and other non-COVID illnesses, a lot more of them had been vaccinated for COVID. What that tells you is that we’re seeing fewer vaccinated people hospitalized with COVID than we would expect because we have this standardization from other respiratory infections. We expect this many vaccinated people because that’s how many vaccinated people there are who show up with flu. But in the COVID population, there are fewer, and that would suggest that the vaccines are effective. So that is the test-negative case-control design. You can do the same thing with ICU stays and death.
There are some assumptions here which you might already be thinking about. The most important one is that vaccination status is not associated with the risk for the disease. I always think of older people in this context. During the pandemic, at least in the United States, older people were much more likely to be vaccinated but were also much more likely to contract COVID and be hospitalized with COVID. The test-negative design actually accounts for this in some sense, because older people are also more likely to be hospitalized for things like flu and pneumonia. So there’s some control there.
But to the extent that older people are uniquely susceptible to COVID compared with other respiratory illnesses, that would bias your results to make the vaccines look worse. So the standard approach here is to adjust for these things. I think the CDC adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and a few other things to settle down and see how effective the vaccines were.
Let’s get to a worked example.
This is the actual data from the CDC paper. They had 6,907 individuals who were hospitalized with COVID, and 26% of them were unvaccinated. What’s the baseline rate that we would expect to be unvaccinated? A total of 59,234 individuals were hospitalized with a non-COVID respiratory illness, and 23% of them were unvaccinated. So you can see that there were more unvaccinated people than you would think in the COVID group. In other words, fewer vaccinated people, which suggests that the vaccine works to some degree because it’s keeping some people out of the hospital.
Now, 26% versus 23% is not a very impressive difference. But it gets more interesting when you break it down by the type of vaccine and how long ago the individual was vaccinated.
Let’s walk through the “all” group on this figure. What you can see is the calculated vaccine effectiveness. If you look at just the monovalent vaccine here, we see a 20% vaccine effectiveness. This means that you’re preventing 20% of hospitalizations basically due to COVID by people getting vaccinated. That’s okay but it’s certainly not anything to write home about. But we see much better vaccine effectiveness with the bivalent vaccine if it had been received within 60 days.
This compares people who received the bivalent vaccine within 60 days in the COVID group and the non-COVID group. The concern that the vaccine was given very recently affects both groups equally so it shouldn’t result in bias there. You see a step-off in vaccine effectiveness from 60 days, 60-120 days, and greater than 120 days. This is 4 months, and you’ve gone from 60% to 20%. When you break that down by age, you can see a similar pattern in the 18-to-65 group and potentially some more protection the greater than 65 age group.
Why is vaccine efficacy going down? The study doesn’t tell us, but we can hypothesize that this might be an immunologic effect – the antibodies or the protective T cells are waning over time. This could also reflect changes in the virus in the environment as the virus seeks to evade certain immune responses. But overall, this suggests that waiting a year between booster doses may leave you exposed for quite some time, although the take-home here is that bivalent vaccines in general are probably a good idea for the proportion of people who haven’t gotten them.
When we look at critical illness and death, the numbers look a little bit better.
You can see that bivalent is better than monovalent – certainly pretty good if you’ve received it within 60 days. It does tend to wane a little bit, but not nearly as much. You’ve still got about 50% vaccine efficacy beyond 120 days when we’re looking at critical illness, which is stays in the ICU and death.
The overriding thing to think about when we think about vaccine policy is that the way you get immunized against COVID is either by vaccine or by getting infected with COVID, or both.
This really interesting graph from the CDC (although it’s updated only through quarter three of 2022) shows the proportion of Americans, based on routine lab tests, who have varying degrees of protection against COVID. What you can see is that, by quarter three of 2022, just 3.6% of people who had blood drawn at a commercial laboratory had no evidence of infection or vaccination. In other words, almost no one was totally naive. Then 26% of people had never been infected – they only have vaccine antibodies – plus 22% of people had only been infected but had never been vaccinated. And then 50% of people had both. So there’s a tremendous amount of existing immunity out there.
The really interesting question about future vaccination and future booster doses is, how does it work on the background of this pattern? The CDC study doesn’t tell us, and I don’t think they have the data to tell us the vaccine efficacy in these different groups. Is it more effective in people who have only had an infection, for example? Is it more effective in people who have only had vaccination versus people who had both, or people who have no protection whatsoever? Those are the really interesting questions that need to be answered going forward as vaccine policy gets developed in the future.
I hope this was a helpful primer on how the test-negative case-control design can answer questions that seem a little bit unanswerable.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.
I am here today to talk about the effectiveness of COVID vaccine boosters in the midst of 2023. The reason I want to talk about this isn’t necessarily to dig into exactly how effective vaccines are. This is an area that’s been trod upon multiple times. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about a neat study design called the “test-negative case-control” design, which has some unique properties when you’re trying to evaluate the effect of something outside of the context of a randomized trial.
So, just a little bit of background to remind everyone where we are. These are the number of doses of COVID vaccines administered over time throughout the pandemic.
You can see that it’s stratified by age. The orange lines are adults ages 18-49, for example. You can see a big wave of vaccination when the vaccine first came out at the start of 2021. Then subsequently, you can see smaller waves after the first and second booster authorizations, and maybe a bit of a pickup, particularly among older adults, when the bivalent boosters were authorized. But still very little overall pickup of the bivalent booster, compared with the monovalent vaccines, which might suggest vaccine fatigue going on this far into the pandemic. But it’s important to try to understand exactly how effective those new boosters are, at least at this point in time.
I’m talking about Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Booster Dose Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Attributable to Omicron BA.5– and XBB/XBB.1.5–Related Sublineages Among Immunocompetent Adults – Increasing Community Access to Testing Program, United States, December 2022–January 2023, which came out in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report very recently, which uses this test-negative case-control design to evaluate the ability of bivalent mRNA vaccines to prevent hospitalization.
The question is: Does receipt of a bivalent COVID vaccine booster prevent hospitalizations, ICU stay, or death? That may not be the question that is of interest to everyone. I know people are interested in symptoms, missed work, and transmission, but this paper was looking at hospitalization, ICU stay, and death.
What’s kind of tricky here is that the data they’re using are in people who are hospitalized with various diseases. You might look at that on the surface and say: “Well, you can’t – that’s impossible.” But you can, actually, with this cool test-negative case-control design.
Here’s basically how it works. You take a population of people who are hospitalized and confirmed to have COVID. Some of them will be vaccinated and some of them will be unvaccinated. And the proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated people doesn’t tell you very much because it depends on how that compares with the rates in the general population, for instance. Let me clarify this. If 100% of the population were vaccinated, then 100% of the people hospitalized with COVID would be vaccinated. That doesn’t mean vaccines are bad. Put another way, if 90% of the population were vaccinated and 60% of people hospitalized with COVID were vaccinated, that would actually show that the vaccines were working to some extent, all else being equal. So it’s not just the raw percentages that tell you anything. Some people are vaccinated, some people aren’t. You need to understand what the baseline rate is.
The test-negative case-control design looks at people who are hospitalized without COVID. Now who those people are (who the controls are, in this case) is something you really need to think about. In the case of this CDC study, they used people who were hospitalized with COVID-like illnesses – flu-like illnesses, respiratory illnesses, pneumonia, influenza, etc. This is a pretty good idea because it standardizes a little bit for people who have access to healthcare. They can get to a hospital and they’re the type of person who would go to a hospital when they’re feeling sick. That’s a better control than the general population overall, which is something I like about this design.
Some of those people who don’t have COVID (they’re in the hospital for flu or whatever) will have been vaccinated for COVID, and some will not have been vaccinated for COVID. And of course, we don’t expect COVID vaccines necessarily to protect against the flu or pneumonia, but that gives us a way to standardize.
If you look at these Venn diagrams, I’ve got vaccinated/unvaccinated being exactly the same proportion, which would suggest that you’re just as likely to be hospitalized with COVID if you’re vaccinated as you are to be hospitalized with some other respiratory illness, which suggests that the vaccine isn’t particularly effective.
However, if you saw something like this, looking at all those patients with flu and other non-COVID illnesses, a lot more of them had been vaccinated for COVID. What that tells you is that we’re seeing fewer vaccinated people hospitalized with COVID than we would expect because we have this standardization from other respiratory infections. We expect this many vaccinated people because that’s how many vaccinated people there are who show up with flu. But in the COVID population, there are fewer, and that would suggest that the vaccines are effective. So that is the test-negative case-control design. You can do the same thing with ICU stays and death.
There are some assumptions here which you might already be thinking about. The most important one is that vaccination status is not associated with the risk for the disease. I always think of older people in this context. During the pandemic, at least in the United States, older people were much more likely to be vaccinated but were also much more likely to contract COVID and be hospitalized with COVID. The test-negative design actually accounts for this in some sense, because older people are also more likely to be hospitalized for things like flu and pneumonia. So there’s some control there.
But to the extent that older people are uniquely susceptible to COVID compared with other respiratory illnesses, that would bias your results to make the vaccines look worse. So the standard approach here is to adjust for these things. I think the CDC adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and a few other things to settle down and see how effective the vaccines were.
Let’s get to a worked example.
This is the actual data from the CDC paper. They had 6,907 individuals who were hospitalized with COVID, and 26% of them were unvaccinated. What’s the baseline rate that we would expect to be unvaccinated? A total of 59,234 individuals were hospitalized with a non-COVID respiratory illness, and 23% of them were unvaccinated. So you can see that there were more unvaccinated people than you would think in the COVID group. In other words, fewer vaccinated people, which suggests that the vaccine works to some degree because it’s keeping some people out of the hospital.
Now, 26% versus 23% is not a very impressive difference. But it gets more interesting when you break it down by the type of vaccine and how long ago the individual was vaccinated.
Let’s walk through the “all” group on this figure. What you can see is the calculated vaccine effectiveness. If you look at just the monovalent vaccine here, we see a 20% vaccine effectiveness. This means that you’re preventing 20% of hospitalizations basically due to COVID by people getting vaccinated. That’s okay but it’s certainly not anything to write home about. But we see much better vaccine effectiveness with the bivalent vaccine if it had been received within 60 days.
This compares people who received the bivalent vaccine within 60 days in the COVID group and the non-COVID group. The concern that the vaccine was given very recently affects both groups equally so it shouldn’t result in bias there. You see a step-off in vaccine effectiveness from 60 days, 60-120 days, and greater than 120 days. This is 4 months, and you’ve gone from 60% to 20%. When you break that down by age, you can see a similar pattern in the 18-to-65 group and potentially some more protection the greater than 65 age group.
Why is vaccine efficacy going down? The study doesn’t tell us, but we can hypothesize that this might be an immunologic effect – the antibodies or the protective T cells are waning over time. This could also reflect changes in the virus in the environment as the virus seeks to evade certain immune responses. But overall, this suggests that waiting a year between booster doses may leave you exposed for quite some time, although the take-home here is that bivalent vaccines in general are probably a good idea for the proportion of people who haven’t gotten them.
When we look at critical illness and death, the numbers look a little bit better.
You can see that bivalent is better than monovalent – certainly pretty good if you’ve received it within 60 days. It does tend to wane a little bit, but not nearly as much. You’ve still got about 50% vaccine efficacy beyond 120 days when we’re looking at critical illness, which is stays in the ICU and death.
The overriding thing to think about when we think about vaccine policy is that the way you get immunized against COVID is either by vaccine or by getting infected with COVID, or both.
This really interesting graph from the CDC (although it’s updated only through quarter three of 2022) shows the proportion of Americans, based on routine lab tests, who have varying degrees of protection against COVID. What you can see is that, by quarter three of 2022, just 3.6% of people who had blood drawn at a commercial laboratory had no evidence of infection or vaccination. In other words, almost no one was totally naive. Then 26% of people had never been infected – they only have vaccine antibodies – plus 22% of people had only been infected but had never been vaccinated. And then 50% of people had both. So there’s a tremendous amount of existing immunity out there.
The really interesting question about future vaccination and future booster doses is, how does it work on the background of this pattern? The CDC study doesn’t tell us, and I don’t think they have the data to tell us the vaccine efficacy in these different groups. Is it more effective in people who have only had an infection, for example? Is it more effective in people who have only had vaccination versus people who had both, or people who have no protection whatsoever? Those are the really interesting questions that need to be answered going forward as vaccine policy gets developed in the future.
I hope this was a helpful primer on how the test-negative case-control design can answer questions that seem a little bit unanswerable.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What was the impact of COVID-19 on maternal mortality in the United States?
Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Maternal mortality rates in the United States were embarrassingly high and rising compared with other high-income countries prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Thoma and Declercq aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy-related deaths within 42 days of childbirth as well as out to 12 months postpartum.1
During the pandemic, many issues may have affected maternity care and birthing experiences, including changes in prenatal care, restrictions that prevented support people from attending labor, and staffing shortages related to hospital overcrowding with personnel assignments away from labor and delivery. The study by Thoma and Declercq looked at maternal mortality from prior to the onset of the pandemic through changes in the health care environment, availability of vaccines, and emergence of more highly contagious and potentially more lethal viral variants.1 All data were stratified by race, ethnicity, and locale. Death rates were compared between urban, metropolitan regions; suburban, mid-size regions; and rural locations.
Details of the study
Data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) publicly available WONDER database from 2019 to 2021. Because the absolute number of deaths within the American Indian/Alaska Native community was relatively small during that timeframe, data from 2018 also were accessed in order to verify reliability. The authors used the CDC’s definition of pregnancy-related death as “a death while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”2 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify maternal deaths. The multiple causes of death file was queried to match maternal deaths with COVID-19 as a contributory cause.
Patterns of maternal deaths were compared with overall COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 death rates for reproductive-age women (ages 15 to 44) by quarters beginning in quarter 1 of 2019. Quarters through the first quarter of 2020 were prepandemic, then quarterly statistics were analyzed from the second quarter of 2020 through the end of 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on early and late maternal mortality.
Findings. Overall maternal mortality rose by 26% from the beginning of 2020 to the second quarter, remained stable through mid-2021, then increased dramatically in the second half of 2021. Maternal mortality unrelated to COVID-19 remained fairly consistent at prior levels, whereas the COVID-19 associateddeaths mirrored the pattern of mortality among reproductive-age nonpregnant women attributed to COVID-19. In addition, the disparities in health outcomes observed in the population at large related to COVID-19 were similar among pregnant people.
American Indian/Alaska Native populations had the largest increase in mortality—more than doubling between early 2020 and the end of 2021. Black people experienced the largest absolute increase in mortality (up to 97.7/100,000 births) while Hispanic birthing people had the highest relative increase (from 19.3 to 29.8/100,000 births). While there were increases in maternal mortality among White and Asian birthing people, these variances were much smaller than for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations.
When comparing mortality stratified by residence areas, early pandemic deaths were higher among birthing people in large urban areas (a 33% increase in 2020); however, later in the pandemic the rates increased substantially in medium-small metropolitan areas (39%) and rural areas (21%).
Study strengths and limitations
The administrative data used to inform this study is a relatively reliable dataset, although errors in both coding for COVID-19 as a contributory cause of maternal death and appropriate ascertainment of race and ethnicity may have occurred. Administrative data can highlight the trends in maternal mortality but cannot identify the root causes of these deaths. We are left with many questions regarding the contribution of staffing, support in labor, changes in prenatal care, and instability in food, housing, and comorbid medical conditions to this devastating rise in maternal mortality. ●
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased maternal mortality overall but in disproportionate increases in maternal mortality in American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Hispanic birthing people. The sharpest rise in mortality occurred with the onset of the Delta variant—and after several COVID-19 vaccines were available, which were not tested in or recommended early in 2021 for pregnant people. Vulnerable populations were at highest risk for death associated with COVID-19 during pregnancy. Perhaps this can inform responses to future pandemics and prompt inclusion of pregnant people early in the development of vaccines and prevention strategies.
BARBARA LEVY, MD
- Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy mortality surveillance system. Accessed April 17, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal -mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm
Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Maternal mortality rates in the United States were embarrassingly high and rising compared with other high-income countries prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Thoma and Declercq aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy-related deaths within 42 days of childbirth as well as out to 12 months postpartum.1
During the pandemic, many issues may have affected maternity care and birthing experiences, including changes in prenatal care, restrictions that prevented support people from attending labor, and staffing shortages related to hospital overcrowding with personnel assignments away from labor and delivery. The study by Thoma and Declercq looked at maternal mortality from prior to the onset of the pandemic through changes in the health care environment, availability of vaccines, and emergence of more highly contagious and potentially more lethal viral variants.1 All data were stratified by race, ethnicity, and locale. Death rates were compared between urban, metropolitan regions; suburban, mid-size regions; and rural locations.
Details of the study
Data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) publicly available WONDER database from 2019 to 2021. Because the absolute number of deaths within the American Indian/Alaska Native community was relatively small during that timeframe, data from 2018 also were accessed in order to verify reliability. The authors used the CDC’s definition of pregnancy-related death as “a death while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”2 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify maternal deaths. The multiple causes of death file was queried to match maternal deaths with COVID-19 as a contributory cause.
Patterns of maternal deaths were compared with overall COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 death rates for reproductive-age women (ages 15 to 44) by quarters beginning in quarter 1 of 2019. Quarters through the first quarter of 2020 were prepandemic, then quarterly statistics were analyzed from the second quarter of 2020 through the end of 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on early and late maternal mortality.
Findings. Overall maternal mortality rose by 26% from the beginning of 2020 to the second quarter, remained stable through mid-2021, then increased dramatically in the second half of 2021. Maternal mortality unrelated to COVID-19 remained fairly consistent at prior levels, whereas the COVID-19 associateddeaths mirrored the pattern of mortality among reproductive-age nonpregnant women attributed to COVID-19. In addition, the disparities in health outcomes observed in the population at large related to COVID-19 were similar among pregnant people.
American Indian/Alaska Native populations had the largest increase in mortality—more than doubling between early 2020 and the end of 2021. Black people experienced the largest absolute increase in mortality (up to 97.7/100,000 births) while Hispanic birthing people had the highest relative increase (from 19.3 to 29.8/100,000 births). While there were increases in maternal mortality among White and Asian birthing people, these variances were much smaller than for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations.
When comparing mortality stratified by residence areas, early pandemic deaths were higher among birthing people in large urban areas (a 33% increase in 2020); however, later in the pandemic the rates increased substantially in medium-small metropolitan areas (39%) and rural areas (21%).
Study strengths and limitations
The administrative data used to inform this study is a relatively reliable dataset, although errors in both coding for COVID-19 as a contributory cause of maternal death and appropriate ascertainment of race and ethnicity may have occurred. Administrative data can highlight the trends in maternal mortality but cannot identify the root causes of these deaths. We are left with many questions regarding the contribution of staffing, support in labor, changes in prenatal care, and instability in food, housing, and comorbid medical conditions to this devastating rise in maternal mortality. ●
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased maternal mortality overall but in disproportionate increases in maternal mortality in American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Hispanic birthing people. The sharpest rise in mortality occurred with the onset of the Delta variant—and after several COVID-19 vaccines were available, which were not tested in or recommended early in 2021 for pregnant people. Vulnerable populations were at highest risk for death associated with COVID-19 during pregnancy. Perhaps this can inform responses to future pandemics and prompt inclusion of pregnant people early in the development of vaccines and prevention strategies.
BARBARA LEVY, MD
Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Maternal mortality rates in the United States were embarrassingly high and rising compared with other high-income countries prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Thoma and Declercq aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy-related deaths within 42 days of childbirth as well as out to 12 months postpartum.1
During the pandemic, many issues may have affected maternity care and birthing experiences, including changes in prenatal care, restrictions that prevented support people from attending labor, and staffing shortages related to hospital overcrowding with personnel assignments away from labor and delivery. The study by Thoma and Declercq looked at maternal mortality from prior to the onset of the pandemic through changes in the health care environment, availability of vaccines, and emergence of more highly contagious and potentially more lethal viral variants.1 All data were stratified by race, ethnicity, and locale. Death rates were compared between urban, metropolitan regions; suburban, mid-size regions; and rural locations.
Details of the study
Data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) publicly available WONDER database from 2019 to 2021. Because the absolute number of deaths within the American Indian/Alaska Native community was relatively small during that timeframe, data from 2018 also were accessed in order to verify reliability. The authors used the CDC’s definition of pregnancy-related death as “a death while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”2 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify maternal deaths. The multiple causes of death file was queried to match maternal deaths with COVID-19 as a contributory cause.
Patterns of maternal deaths were compared with overall COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 death rates for reproductive-age women (ages 15 to 44) by quarters beginning in quarter 1 of 2019. Quarters through the first quarter of 2020 were prepandemic, then quarterly statistics were analyzed from the second quarter of 2020 through the end of 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on early and late maternal mortality.
Findings. Overall maternal mortality rose by 26% from the beginning of 2020 to the second quarter, remained stable through mid-2021, then increased dramatically in the second half of 2021. Maternal mortality unrelated to COVID-19 remained fairly consistent at prior levels, whereas the COVID-19 associateddeaths mirrored the pattern of mortality among reproductive-age nonpregnant women attributed to COVID-19. In addition, the disparities in health outcomes observed in the population at large related to COVID-19 were similar among pregnant people.
American Indian/Alaska Native populations had the largest increase in mortality—more than doubling between early 2020 and the end of 2021. Black people experienced the largest absolute increase in mortality (up to 97.7/100,000 births) while Hispanic birthing people had the highest relative increase (from 19.3 to 29.8/100,000 births). While there were increases in maternal mortality among White and Asian birthing people, these variances were much smaller than for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations.
When comparing mortality stratified by residence areas, early pandemic deaths were higher among birthing people in large urban areas (a 33% increase in 2020); however, later in the pandemic the rates increased substantially in medium-small metropolitan areas (39%) and rural areas (21%).
Study strengths and limitations
The administrative data used to inform this study is a relatively reliable dataset, although errors in both coding for COVID-19 as a contributory cause of maternal death and appropriate ascertainment of race and ethnicity may have occurred. Administrative data can highlight the trends in maternal mortality but cannot identify the root causes of these deaths. We are left with many questions regarding the contribution of staffing, support in labor, changes in prenatal care, and instability in food, housing, and comorbid medical conditions to this devastating rise in maternal mortality. ●
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased maternal mortality overall but in disproportionate increases in maternal mortality in American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Hispanic birthing people. The sharpest rise in mortality occurred with the onset of the Delta variant—and after several COVID-19 vaccines were available, which were not tested in or recommended early in 2021 for pregnant people. Vulnerable populations were at highest risk for death associated with COVID-19 during pregnancy. Perhaps this can inform responses to future pandemics and prompt inclusion of pregnant people early in the development of vaccines and prevention strategies.
BARBARA LEVY, MD
- Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy mortality surveillance system. Accessed April 17, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal -mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm
- Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy mortality surveillance system. Accessed April 17, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal -mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm
Review supports continued mask-wearing in health care visits
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
COVID emergency over, but hundreds are still dying weekly
Traci Sikes’s older sister Debbie had survived several health setbacks in life – a heart attack, a cancer diagnosis, and a couple of botched surgeries for a bad back. But by early 2023, the 68-year-old from Brownwood, Tex., was in remission from lymphoma, feeling stronger, and celebrating a birthday for one of her 11 beloved grandchildren.
Then Debbie caught COVID-19. Less than 2 months later, in March, she died of severe lung damage caused by the coronavirus.
Traci was able to make the trip from her home in Washington state to Texas to be with Debbie before she died. She was grateful that she arrived while her sister was still lucid and to hear her sister’s last word – “love” – spoken to one of her grandchildren before she took her final breath.
“My sister was wonderful,” Sikes said. “And she shouldn’t be gone.”
Just 6 months after President Joe Biden declared last fall that “the pandemic is over,” Just as both the World Health Organization and U.S. government recently ended the 3-year-old coronavirus public health emergency, COVID is still killing more than 100 people every day in the U.S., according to the CDC, and amid widespread efforts to move on and drop protective measures, the country’s most vulnerable people are still at significant risk.
The prevailing attitude that we need to learn to live with the current level of risk feels like a “slap in the face,” for COVID grievers who have already paid the price,” said Sabila Khan, who cofounded a Facebook group for COVID loss support, which now has more than 14,000 members.
It also minimizes the continuing loss of life and that so many people are still dying traumatic and unnecessary deaths, she said.
“It feels like it’s been brushed aside,” she said. “Like, ‘It’s business as usual. It’s over. Take off your mask.’ My family and I are still masked, and we’re probably the only ones masked in any given room.”
The abandoning of protective measures also fails to recognize the ongoing and catastrophic risks of long COVID and the experiences of an estimated 26 million people in the U.S. living with long COVID.
“It’s been drummed into us that death is the only serious outcome [of the virus] and we still haven’t made enough space for the idea that long COVID is a very serious outcome,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who has helped care for thousands of patients with long COVID.
Historic drop in life expectancy
More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID over the past 3 years, and experts say the official numbers are likely underestimated because of errors in death certificate reporting. Although deaths have waned from earlier in the pandemic, the disease has become the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” such as drug overdoses.
What makes these deaths all the more tragic is that COVID is a preventable disease, said Carla Sevin, MD, a critical care doctor and director of the Pulmonary Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. Masking, available vaccines, and social distancing have all been shown to significantly lower the risk of spreading and catching the virus. New drugs have also made it possible for infected people to survive COVID.
“It’s possible to not spread COVID,” she said. “It’s possible to protect yourself against COVID. It’s possible to treat COVID. And we’re doing all of those things imperfectly.”
By the end of 2021, Americans overall were dying 3 years sooner, on average, than they were before the pandemic, with life expectancy dropping from 79 years to 76 years, the largest decline in a century.
Globally, the COVID death toll is nearing 7 million. Across all ages, on average, each person who died passed away 10 years younger than they otherwise would have. That’s tens of millions of years wiped away.
As U.S. surgeon and health researcher Atul Gawande, MD, put it in a New York Times essay about the pandemic response: “Human development has been pushed into reverse.”
What is an acceptable threshold of death?
In the United States, more than 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Underlying medical conditions and disabilities also raise the risk of severe illness and dying from COVID.
The virus is also disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people and those with less access to health care. Racialized groups are dying from COVID at younger ages. COVID advocates and Americans who’ve lost loved ones to the disease say our willingness to accept these facts and the current mortality rate amounts to health-based discrimination.
“Would politicians be approaching this differently had it mostly affected rich white people?” Ms. Khan said.
Ms. Khan’s dad, Shafqat, was an advocate and community organizer for Pakistani immigrants. After contracting COVID, he was rushed to a hospital near his daughter’s Jersey City, N.J., home from a rehab facility where he was being treated for an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease. For the 8 days her father was in the hospital, she and other family members couldn’t visit him, and he wasn’t even well enough to talk on the phone. He died from COVID in April 2020.
“My father was an extraordinary person who did so much good and he died alone, terrified in a hospital,” she said. “I can’t even wrap my head around that and how he deserved more. No one deserves that.”
At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works as a critical care doctor, COVID deaths are now different from those in the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Sevin said. Most patients now in the intensive care unit are older and immunocompromised – and they tend to blend in more with others in the intensive care unit. That makes the impact of COVID even more hidden and easily ignored.
“It’s easy not to value somebody who’s an invisible number you don’t know,” she said. “You don’t see them writing their will and talking to their best friend. You don’t see the tears rolling down their face because they know what’s going to happen to them and they’re going to asphyxiate to death.”
One COVID patient who died recently in Dr. Sevin’s ICU ward was an older woman who had no living relatives. “She was very, very lonely, and we would always stand outside the door on rounds, and she would motion for us to come in, but we had to then all gown up,” Dr. Sevin said. “It just breaks your heart that people are still having to go through it.”
Dr. Sevin finds it frustrating that so many of the measures that public health officials fought so hard for over the last 3 years – including masking guidelines, government-funded vaccine clinics, and access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications – are now going away because of the lifting of the pandemic emergency declaration.
What makes matters worse, she said, is that public consciousness about taking precautions to protect others is starting to disappear in favor of an “all or nothing attitude” about the continued risks.
“Like either I’m going to stay home and be a hermit, or I’m going to just throw caution to the wind and go to bars and let people yell in my face,” she said. “We learned some hard lessons, and I wish we could hold onto those.”
Americans like Traci Sikes who’ve lost loved ones and health care workers on the front lines say it is particularly frustrating that so many people are framing the current response to the risks of COVID as “personal choice” over responsibility to others, as well as a sense of fatalism and lack of urgent care.
“Why does nobody seem to be angry about this?” Ms. Sikes said. “People talk about COVID like it’s just another thing to die from. But my sister didn’t have to die from it at all.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Traci Sikes’s older sister Debbie had survived several health setbacks in life – a heart attack, a cancer diagnosis, and a couple of botched surgeries for a bad back. But by early 2023, the 68-year-old from Brownwood, Tex., was in remission from lymphoma, feeling stronger, and celebrating a birthday for one of her 11 beloved grandchildren.
Then Debbie caught COVID-19. Less than 2 months later, in March, she died of severe lung damage caused by the coronavirus.
Traci was able to make the trip from her home in Washington state to Texas to be with Debbie before she died. She was grateful that she arrived while her sister was still lucid and to hear her sister’s last word – “love” – spoken to one of her grandchildren before she took her final breath.
“My sister was wonderful,” Sikes said. “And she shouldn’t be gone.”
Just 6 months after President Joe Biden declared last fall that “the pandemic is over,” Just as both the World Health Organization and U.S. government recently ended the 3-year-old coronavirus public health emergency, COVID is still killing more than 100 people every day in the U.S., according to the CDC, and amid widespread efforts to move on and drop protective measures, the country’s most vulnerable people are still at significant risk.
The prevailing attitude that we need to learn to live with the current level of risk feels like a “slap in the face,” for COVID grievers who have already paid the price,” said Sabila Khan, who cofounded a Facebook group for COVID loss support, which now has more than 14,000 members.
It also minimizes the continuing loss of life and that so many people are still dying traumatic and unnecessary deaths, she said.
“It feels like it’s been brushed aside,” she said. “Like, ‘It’s business as usual. It’s over. Take off your mask.’ My family and I are still masked, and we’re probably the only ones masked in any given room.”
The abandoning of protective measures also fails to recognize the ongoing and catastrophic risks of long COVID and the experiences of an estimated 26 million people in the U.S. living with long COVID.
“It’s been drummed into us that death is the only serious outcome [of the virus] and we still haven’t made enough space for the idea that long COVID is a very serious outcome,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who has helped care for thousands of patients with long COVID.
Historic drop in life expectancy
More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID over the past 3 years, and experts say the official numbers are likely underestimated because of errors in death certificate reporting. Although deaths have waned from earlier in the pandemic, the disease has become the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” such as drug overdoses.
What makes these deaths all the more tragic is that COVID is a preventable disease, said Carla Sevin, MD, a critical care doctor and director of the Pulmonary Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. Masking, available vaccines, and social distancing have all been shown to significantly lower the risk of spreading and catching the virus. New drugs have also made it possible for infected people to survive COVID.
“It’s possible to not spread COVID,” she said. “It’s possible to protect yourself against COVID. It’s possible to treat COVID. And we’re doing all of those things imperfectly.”
By the end of 2021, Americans overall were dying 3 years sooner, on average, than they were before the pandemic, with life expectancy dropping from 79 years to 76 years, the largest decline in a century.
Globally, the COVID death toll is nearing 7 million. Across all ages, on average, each person who died passed away 10 years younger than they otherwise would have. That’s tens of millions of years wiped away.
As U.S. surgeon and health researcher Atul Gawande, MD, put it in a New York Times essay about the pandemic response: “Human development has been pushed into reverse.”
What is an acceptable threshold of death?
In the United States, more than 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Underlying medical conditions and disabilities also raise the risk of severe illness and dying from COVID.
The virus is also disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people and those with less access to health care. Racialized groups are dying from COVID at younger ages. COVID advocates and Americans who’ve lost loved ones to the disease say our willingness to accept these facts and the current mortality rate amounts to health-based discrimination.
“Would politicians be approaching this differently had it mostly affected rich white people?” Ms. Khan said.
Ms. Khan’s dad, Shafqat, was an advocate and community organizer for Pakistani immigrants. After contracting COVID, he was rushed to a hospital near his daughter’s Jersey City, N.J., home from a rehab facility where he was being treated for an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease. For the 8 days her father was in the hospital, she and other family members couldn’t visit him, and he wasn’t even well enough to talk on the phone. He died from COVID in April 2020.
“My father was an extraordinary person who did so much good and he died alone, terrified in a hospital,” she said. “I can’t even wrap my head around that and how he deserved more. No one deserves that.”
At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works as a critical care doctor, COVID deaths are now different from those in the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Sevin said. Most patients now in the intensive care unit are older and immunocompromised – and they tend to blend in more with others in the intensive care unit. That makes the impact of COVID even more hidden and easily ignored.
“It’s easy not to value somebody who’s an invisible number you don’t know,” she said. “You don’t see them writing their will and talking to their best friend. You don’t see the tears rolling down their face because they know what’s going to happen to them and they’re going to asphyxiate to death.”
One COVID patient who died recently in Dr. Sevin’s ICU ward was an older woman who had no living relatives. “She was very, very lonely, and we would always stand outside the door on rounds, and she would motion for us to come in, but we had to then all gown up,” Dr. Sevin said. “It just breaks your heart that people are still having to go through it.”
Dr. Sevin finds it frustrating that so many of the measures that public health officials fought so hard for over the last 3 years – including masking guidelines, government-funded vaccine clinics, and access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications – are now going away because of the lifting of the pandemic emergency declaration.
What makes matters worse, she said, is that public consciousness about taking precautions to protect others is starting to disappear in favor of an “all or nothing attitude” about the continued risks.
“Like either I’m going to stay home and be a hermit, or I’m going to just throw caution to the wind and go to bars and let people yell in my face,” she said. “We learned some hard lessons, and I wish we could hold onto those.”
Americans like Traci Sikes who’ve lost loved ones and health care workers on the front lines say it is particularly frustrating that so many people are framing the current response to the risks of COVID as “personal choice” over responsibility to others, as well as a sense of fatalism and lack of urgent care.
“Why does nobody seem to be angry about this?” Ms. Sikes said. “People talk about COVID like it’s just another thing to die from. But my sister didn’t have to die from it at all.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Traci Sikes’s older sister Debbie had survived several health setbacks in life – a heart attack, a cancer diagnosis, and a couple of botched surgeries for a bad back. But by early 2023, the 68-year-old from Brownwood, Tex., was in remission from lymphoma, feeling stronger, and celebrating a birthday for one of her 11 beloved grandchildren.
Then Debbie caught COVID-19. Less than 2 months later, in March, she died of severe lung damage caused by the coronavirus.
Traci was able to make the trip from her home in Washington state to Texas to be with Debbie before she died. She was grateful that she arrived while her sister was still lucid and to hear her sister’s last word – “love” – spoken to one of her grandchildren before she took her final breath.
“My sister was wonderful,” Sikes said. “And she shouldn’t be gone.”
Just 6 months after President Joe Biden declared last fall that “the pandemic is over,” Just as both the World Health Organization and U.S. government recently ended the 3-year-old coronavirus public health emergency, COVID is still killing more than 100 people every day in the U.S., according to the CDC, and amid widespread efforts to move on and drop protective measures, the country’s most vulnerable people are still at significant risk.
The prevailing attitude that we need to learn to live with the current level of risk feels like a “slap in the face,” for COVID grievers who have already paid the price,” said Sabila Khan, who cofounded a Facebook group for COVID loss support, which now has more than 14,000 members.
It also minimizes the continuing loss of life and that so many people are still dying traumatic and unnecessary deaths, she said.
“It feels like it’s been brushed aside,” she said. “Like, ‘It’s business as usual. It’s over. Take off your mask.’ My family and I are still masked, and we’re probably the only ones masked in any given room.”
The abandoning of protective measures also fails to recognize the ongoing and catastrophic risks of long COVID and the experiences of an estimated 26 million people in the U.S. living with long COVID.
“It’s been drummed into us that death is the only serious outcome [of the virus] and we still haven’t made enough space for the idea that long COVID is a very serious outcome,” said David Putrino, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, who has helped care for thousands of patients with long COVID.
Historic drop in life expectancy
More than 1.1 million Americans have died from COVID over the past 3 years, and experts say the official numbers are likely underestimated because of errors in death certificate reporting. Although deaths have waned from earlier in the pandemic, the disease has become the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” such as drug overdoses.
What makes these deaths all the more tragic is that COVID is a preventable disease, said Carla Sevin, MD, a critical care doctor and director of the Pulmonary Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. Masking, available vaccines, and social distancing have all been shown to significantly lower the risk of spreading and catching the virus. New drugs have also made it possible for infected people to survive COVID.
“It’s possible to not spread COVID,” she said. “It’s possible to protect yourself against COVID. It’s possible to treat COVID. And we’re doing all of those things imperfectly.”
By the end of 2021, Americans overall were dying 3 years sooner, on average, than they were before the pandemic, with life expectancy dropping from 79 years to 76 years, the largest decline in a century.
Globally, the COVID death toll is nearing 7 million. Across all ages, on average, each person who died passed away 10 years younger than they otherwise would have. That’s tens of millions of years wiped away.
As U.S. surgeon and health researcher Atul Gawande, MD, put it in a New York Times essay about the pandemic response: “Human development has been pushed into reverse.”
What is an acceptable threshold of death?
In the United States, more than 80% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older. Underlying medical conditions and disabilities also raise the risk of severe illness and dying from COVID.
The virus is also disproportionately killing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people and those with less access to health care. Racialized groups are dying from COVID at younger ages. COVID advocates and Americans who’ve lost loved ones to the disease say our willingness to accept these facts and the current mortality rate amounts to health-based discrimination.
“Would politicians be approaching this differently had it mostly affected rich white people?” Ms. Khan said.
Ms. Khan’s dad, Shafqat, was an advocate and community organizer for Pakistani immigrants. After contracting COVID, he was rushed to a hospital near his daughter’s Jersey City, N.J., home from a rehab facility where he was being treated for an aggressive form of Parkinson’s disease. For the 8 days her father was in the hospital, she and other family members couldn’t visit him, and he wasn’t even well enough to talk on the phone. He died from COVID in April 2020.
“My father was an extraordinary person who did so much good and he died alone, terrified in a hospital,” she said. “I can’t even wrap my head around that and how he deserved more. No one deserves that.”
At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where she works as a critical care doctor, COVID deaths are now different from those in the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Sevin said. Most patients now in the intensive care unit are older and immunocompromised – and they tend to blend in more with others in the intensive care unit. That makes the impact of COVID even more hidden and easily ignored.
“It’s easy not to value somebody who’s an invisible number you don’t know,” she said. “You don’t see them writing their will and talking to their best friend. You don’t see the tears rolling down their face because they know what’s going to happen to them and they’re going to asphyxiate to death.”
One COVID patient who died recently in Dr. Sevin’s ICU ward was an older woman who had no living relatives. “She was very, very lonely, and we would always stand outside the door on rounds, and she would motion for us to come in, but we had to then all gown up,” Dr. Sevin said. “It just breaks your heart that people are still having to go through it.”
Dr. Sevin finds it frustrating that so many of the measures that public health officials fought so hard for over the last 3 years – including masking guidelines, government-funded vaccine clinics, and access to potentially life-saving antiviral medications – are now going away because of the lifting of the pandemic emergency declaration.
What makes matters worse, she said, is that public consciousness about taking precautions to protect others is starting to disappear in favor of an “all or nothing attitude” about the continued risks.
“Like either I’m going to stay home and be a hermit, or I’m going to just throw caution to the wind and go to bars and let people yell in my face,” she said. “We learned some hard lessons, and I wish we could hold onto those.”
Americans like Traci Sikes who’ve lost loved ones and health care workers on the front lines say it is particularly frustrating that so many people are framing the current response to the risks of COVID as “personal choice” over responsibility to others, as well as a sense of fatalism and lack of urgent care.
“Why does nobody seem to be angry about this?” Ms. Sikes said. “People talk about COVID like it’s just another thing to die from. But my sister didn’t have to die from it at all.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.