COVID-19 Updates

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is more severe in individuals with underlying illnesses. Because complete social distancing might be more difficult in nursing homes and community living centers (CLCs), public health leaders and clinicians have been concerned about the epidemiology and disease course in nursing homes even before the COVID-19 pandemic.1-7 A report of a COVID-19 outbreak in a nursing home facility in King County, Washington, documented a 33.7% overall fatality rate for residents and 52.4% among the most critically ill.^4,5 The experience at King County, Washington, shows that proactive steps to identify, monitor, and apply preventive control measures is important for future outbreaks.⁵

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing produces a cycle threshold (CT) or cycle number (CN) that correlates with viral load and infectiousness. ^8-14 CT/CN represents the number of RT-PCR cycles required for the fluorescent signal to cross the detection threshold (exceed background level) and is inversely proportional to the viral load. Effectively, the higher the viral load, the lower the CT/ CN value (Figure 1). Tracking CT/CN values was not documented in the Washington nursing home outbreak. Reports of COVID- 19 testing in CLCs during outbreaks are sparse, and CT/CN values and demographic distribution of these veterans has not been reported.¹⁵ The CLC veteran population, with known higher vulnerability to infection and chronic diseases, is epidemiologically different from the general nursing home population.^15-18 To address these literature gaps, we present the first report of COVID- 19 testing with CT/CN value correlations in the high-risk veteran CLC population.

Methods

A retrospective review of all COVID-19 CT/CN testing at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) CLC in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from March 28, 2020, to April 24, 2020, was performed with a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Information System Architecture VistA/FileMan search. Only veteran residents were included in this review. Data collected included initial and serial test results, CT/CN on positive test results, test dates, testing platform used, demographic information (age, self-reported ethnicity, and sex), and clinical follow-up information. Health records were reviewed retrospectively to identify death, the first day after diagnosis with no documented symptoms, or hospitalization status.

RT-PCR testing was performed with the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Abbott m2000 platform and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Cepheid Infinity platform. The Xpert Xpress assay gave 2 CT values for the E and N2 targets on positive samples.¹⁹ For this assay to indicate a positive specimen, amplification by RT-PCR of the N2 target or both the N2 and E target is required. The Xpert Xpress assay results as presumptive positive if only the E target amplified. This assay counts a maximum of 45 cycles. The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay gave 1 CN derived from the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and N targets on positive samples.20 The Abbott assay on the m2000 counts a maximum of 37 cycles. The CT/CN value is the number of cycles required by RT-PCR for the fluorescence signal to cross a threshold value exceeding background level.^19,20

Samples that are negative for COVID-19 by RT-PCR do not produce a CT/CN value. Although both instruments were used for RT-PCR, the precise CT/CN values are not interchangeable and CT/CN observations over time between the 2 instruments during the disease course would be based on CT/CN value movement (general upward or downward trend) rather than absolute CT/CN differences. Both assays have been approved by emergency use authorization as qualitative tests for the presence/absence of COVID-19. Although the CT/CN value is available to laboratory staff after test completion, the CT/CN value is not reported routinely in the patient health record. All veteran patients identified on the initial review from March 28, 2020, to April 24, 2020, had all serial COVID-19 testing recorded until November 10, 2020. The CN values at the limit of detection (LOD) for the Abbott m2000 platform from the initial validation study were reviewed for reference.²¹

Results

Of 80 patients, 25 (31%) were COVID-19 positive over the course of testing. The study population had a mean age of 73.5 years; 92% were aged > 60 years. The group was predominantly male (79 male vs 1 female). Among the 77 patients with a stated ethnicity, 39 (51%) were African American. In comparison, 43% of residents in Philadelphia County are African American (Table).^22,23 Additionally, a previously published total COVID-19 tested population by ethnicity at the same regional VAMC revealed 46.8% of tested veteran patients were African American. ²⁴ Three patients had no stated ethnicity. Among those who tested positive, 11 were African American patients, 12 were White patients, and 2 had no stated ethnicity. Four patients tested positive on their first test. The other 21 patients were positive on repeat testing. Interestingly, 6 patients had 1 initial negative test before a positive test, 6 patients had 2, 8 patients had 3, and 1 patient had 4 initial negative tests before a positive test result. Among the 25 positive patients, 22 were either positive within 10 days of the initial negative test result or initially positive (Figure 2). Three patients who tested positive after 10 days did so at 16, 20, and 21 days after the initial negative test result. Among the 25 positive patients, 23 had initial and serial testing from both the Abbott and Xpert Xpress assays. The remaining 2 positive patients had initial and serial testing from the Abbott assay exclusively.

Only positive COVID-19 results by RTPCR produced a CT/CN value. After disease resolution with a negative test, no CT/CN value was produced with the negative test result on either testing platform. Because repeat testing after the initial positive result took place no sooner than 10 days, we observed that the CT/CN value increased after the initial positive result until the disease resolved, and a negative result was obtained (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0276). A t test comparing the initial CT/CN value to the value more than 10 days after the initial positive showed the CT/CN was statistically significantly higher (P < .05).

Prompt repeat testing after the initial test can show a decrease in the CT/CN value because of increasing viral load before the expected increase until disease resolution if the initial test caught the infection early. Twelve patients had a negative test result between 2 serial positive results. These negative test results occurred later, near the end of the disease course. Among the 12 patients with this positive-negativepositive CT/CN pattern, 7 were symptomatic and no longer had documented symptoms or hospitalization around the time of this positive-negative-positive pattern. Four of these individuals were asymptomatic during the entire infection course. One of the 12 patients with this pattern expired with the negative result occurring on day 27 of the disease in the context of rising CT/CN. One of these 12 patients only had a presumptive positive test result on the Cepheid because it detected only the E target with a CT value of 38.7. In 1 of the 12 patients, the negative test result occurred between 2 positive test results with CT/CN values < 20 (12.05 and 19.05 for the positive tests before and after the negative result, respectively). When the initial CT/CN values was separated based on ethnicity, the average CT/CN value for African Americans (23.3) was higher than for other ethnicities (19.9), although it did not reach statistical significance (P = .35).

Ten of the 25 patients testing positive were admitted to the hospital, including 1 admitted 15 days before diagnosis (patient 20) and 1 admitted 80 days after diagnosis (patient 7). Among these 10 patients, 6 were admitted to the intensive care unit, including patient 7. None of the patients were intubated. Three of the 10 admitted patients died (patients 7, 20, and 24). Patient 7 was a 79-year-old male with a history of dementia, cerebrovascular accident, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease with symptoms of lethargy and refusal of oral intake when he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He was admitted 80 days after diagnosis for hyponatremia and acute renal failure, with death on day 87 recorded as complications from the earlier COVID-19 infection. Patient 20, an 89-year-old male with a history of dementia, chronic kidney disease, and hyperlipidemia, had been admitted with fever, cough, and leukocytosis 17 days before COVID-19 diagnosis. He continued to be symptomatic after diagnosis with development of hypotension, dehydration, and refusal of oral intake while on comfort measures/endof- life care and died 15 days after COVID- 19 infection diagnosis. Patient 24 was a 96-year-old male with history of heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, prostate carcinoma, and dementia who developed a cough at the time of diagnosis; because of his underlying condition, he remained in the CLC on comfort care. His symptoms, including hypoxia, worsened until he died 7 days after diagnosis.

Among the 25 patients, 17 were symptomatic at the time of diagnosis; the 14 initially symptomatic patients who survived improved clinically and returned to baseline. Eight of the 25 patients were asymptomatic initially and 3 developed symptoms 2 to 5 days after diagnosis. Only 1 patient who remained asymptomatic was admitted for inability to adhere to quarantine at the CLC. Review of the health records of all surviving symptomatic patients showed symptom resolution with return to baseline that corresponds to an increasing CT/CN value. A 1-tailed t test comparing the initial CT/ CN at the time of diagnosis to the last CT/CN value for symptomatic patients who recovered revealed a statistically significant increase (P < .05). For the symptomatic, symptom resolution and hospital discharge took (if required) a mean 20 days (range, 7-46). Among those who were not hospitalized, symptoms resolved in 7 to 36 days (18 days). Among those requiring hospitalization at any time (excluding patients who died or were asymptomatic), symptom and hospitalization resolution took a mean 22 days (range, 10-46). Asymptomatic patients (patients 8, 10, 15, 16, and 25) also showed increasing CT/CN value during the infection course, although there was no correlation with the continued lack of symptoms.

During the initial validation of the Abbott m2000 instrument, an LOD study included concentrations of 1000, 500, 250, 100, 70, 60, and 50 virus copies/mL (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0276).21 The average CN at 100 virus copies/mL—the manufacturer provided LOD in the instructions for use—was 25.74.20 At a concentration of one-half that (50 virus copies/mL), the average CN was 28.39.

Discussion

This is the first study in the English literature to track CT/CN values as part of serial testing of a veteran CLC. Widescale testing and repeat screening in the absence of symptoms of nursing home residents would identify those who are infected and allow providers to track viral load clearance.^9-14 CT/CN values, when serially tracked during the infection course, appear to increase with illness resolution, consistent with earlier reports that CT/CN correlates with viral load.^8-14 Serial CT/CN values that are high (> 25) and continue to increase with each test suggest progression toward disease resolution or viral RNA clearance.^8-14 After symptom resolution, patients can have a persistent low level of viral shedding (corresponding to a high CT/CN value).^10-14,25 Near the end of disease resolution, a negative serial RT-PCR sample test before a subsequent positive might be a promising clinical sign of near disease recovery. Once the viral load is low with a CT/CN significantly higher than 25, some specimens might result as negative but turn up positive on subsequent sampling with a high CT/CN value. This pattern, with attendant high CT/CN values for the positive results, are consistent with the known effect of viral load (ie, a low viral load correlates to a high CT/CN) and adequacy of specimen collection on CT/CN values^.25 If the patient’s viral load is low, the sample collected might have a viral load at or near the testing platform’s LOD.

For Abbott m2000, the manufacturer provided LOD is 100 virus copies/mL, although the instrument was able to detect virus concentrations below that level during the initial validation.²⁰ The actual LOD of the instrument at our institution is < 100 virus copies/mL. For the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay, the manufacturer-provided LOD is 250 virus copies/mL.19 An LOD study including samples below the manufacturer-provided LOD was not part of the initial validation study for the Xpert Xpress assay. Nonetheless, the virus concentration of samples with very high CT values at or near the maximum CT value of 45 is expected to be at or near the platform’s actual LOD.

If the samples collected near the end of the patient’s disease course have viral loads near these low concentrations, the encouraging positive-negative-positive pattern with high CT/CN values might be a promising sign for viral clearance. On the other hand, a positive-negative-positive pattern in the setting of low CT/CN values before and after the negative test might indicate poor sampling for the negative specimen. The back-and-forth or positive-negative-positive pattern generally appears to indicate near resolution of the infection course, although clinical correlation is necessary to rule out inadequate sampling earlier in the disease course or prolonged viral RNA shedding.^9-14 In all of the surviving symptomatic patients who showed the positive-negative-positive pattern, this sign occurred around or after symptom resolution. It also is important to consider that in some patients, SARS-CoV-2 RNA might remain detectable with increasing CT/CN after symptom resolution, and samples from these patients might not result positive. Therefore, CT/CN values cannot be interpreted without considering the clinical picture.²⁵

Studies on infectiousness and virus culture from COVID-19 samples with CT/ CN correlation have shown that patients with high CT/CN at the end of their disease course might not be as infectious.^9-14,25 Because 1 patient had a presumptive positive result after the negative result, this study shows that this positive-negative-positive pattern could include presumptive positive results. Also, in the setting of a recent positive result on the same testing platform, a patient with this pattern is presumed to be positive for COVID-19 RNA because of scant viral material.

Taiwan’s public health response to the outbreak illustrates the ability to mitigate an outbreak throughout a society.²⁶ These actions could help blunt an outbreak within a civilian nursing home population.⁵ Mitigation within a veteran CLC population has been documented, but the study, which focused on mitigation, did not consider CT/CN values, demographic distribution, testing access of the studied population, or laboratory findings related to disease pathophysiology.¹⁵ A key ingredient in widescale, serial testing is the availability of a rapid turnaround from testing in-house that allowed identification within 24 hours instead of several days at a reference laboratory. ¹⁵ Rapid widescale testing would allow clinical teams to optimize the Triangle of Benefit of Widescale Timely Tests for CLC (Figure 3).¹⁵ Timely laboratory testing remains pivotal for CLC veteran residents to aid successful clinical triage and management. Reporting serial CT/CN values can provide additional information to clinicians about the disease course because CT/ CN correlates with viral load, which varies based on where the patient is in the disease course.^9-14 CT/CN values carry significant prognostic value, particularly with respect to intubation and mortality.⁸

Limitations

Important limitations to our study include the use of 2 separate RT-PCR platforms. Using different RT-PCR platforms is common in clinical laboratories trying to take advantage of the unique characteristics of different platforms—for example, turnaround time vs high throughput— to manage COVID-19 testing workflow.²⁵ However, the exact CT/CN values obtained from each platform might not translate to the other, and the general trend (CT/CN values are rising or falling across serial tests) rather than a single value could be useful for clinical correlation. Even when the same platform is used for the serial testing, CT/CN values can be affected by adequacy of specimen collection; therefore, clinical correlation and considering the trend in CT/CN values is necessary for interpretation.^10-14,25 Because of the known trend in viral dynamics, a positive specimen collected with a high CT/CN followed by a subsequent (within 2 days) positive specimen collected with a low CT/CN might be compatible with early detection of COVID- 19 infection in the appropriate clinical context. ^10-14 However, detection late in the infection course or even after the symptomatic disease resolved with prolonged viral shedding might show serial positive samples with increasing CT/CN values.^10-14

Patients with prolonged viral shedding might not be infectious.27 Because of the clinical correlation required for interpretation and the other factors that might affect CT/CN values, recommendations advise against using CT/CN values in clinical practice at this time, although these recommendations could change with future research.25 Serial CT/CN values have the potential, if appropriately correlated with the clinical picture, to provide useful information, such as whether the viral load of the sample is relatively high or low and increasing or decreasing.

Veterans, as a population, are more susceptible to poor health outcomes and morbidity compared with similar civilian counterparts.^2,14-16 Veteran CLC patients likely would experience worse outcomes with COVID-19, including more infections, expiration, and morbidity compared with similar general population nursing homes. Similar to what had been reported for the civilian population, a trend (high CT/CN values early in the disease course with repeat testing needed to detect all positives followed by lower CT/CN value to correlate with increased viral load and then increased CT/CN value as the infection resolved) also was observed in this veteran population.

It has been extensively documented that minority groups experience decreased health care access and worse health outcomes. ^28-30 Considering the critical medical supply shortages, including personal protective equipment, ventilators, and even testing supplies, there is the potential for a resource access disparity by ethnicity.^28-31 Because the VA does not depend on measures of wealth and privilege such as health insurance, there was no disparity noted in access to testing by race or ethnicity at the VAMC CLC. When considering the health outcome of viral load from the measured CT/CN value, the viral loads of African American patients and those of other ethnicities was not significantly different in this study.

Conclusions

This is the first study to bring up critical points including serial CT/CN value correlation in RT-PCR tests, demographic distributions demonstrating easy and equal access in a veteran nursing home to COVID-19 testing, and clinical laboratory signs related to disease pathophysiology. Unlike other populations who have undergone serial CT/CN monitoring, nursing homes represent a particularly vulnerable population who require measures to prevent the spread and mitigate outbreaks of COVID-19.^2,4,5 Test measurements obtained such as the CT/CN value during routine clinical care can provide useful information for public health, epidemiologic, or clinical purposes with appropriate correlation to clinical and other laboratory parameters. This study demonstrates early intervention of serial testing of an outbreak in a veterans nursing home with CT/CN value correlation.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is more severe in individuals with underlying illnesses. Because complete social distancing might be more difficult in nursing homes and community living centers (CLCs), public health leaders and clinicians have been concerned about the epidemiology and disease course in nursing homes even before the COVID-19 pandemic.1-7 A report of a COVID-19 outbreak in a nursing home facility in King County, Washington, documented a 33.7% overall fatality rate for residents and 52.4% among the most critically ill.^4,5 The experience at King County, Washington, shows that proactive steps to identify, monitor, and apply preventive control measures is important for future outbreaks.⁵

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing produces a cycle threshold (CT) or cycle number (CN) that correlates with viral load and infectiousness. ^8-14 CT/CN represents the number of RT-PCR cycles required for the fluorescent signal to cross the detection threshold (exceed background level) and is inversely proportional to the viral load. Effectively, the higher the viral load, the lower the CT/ CN value (Figure 1). Tracking CT/CN values was not documented in the Washington nursing home outbreak. Reports of COVID- 19 testing in CLCs during outbreaks are sparse, and CT/CN values and demographic distribution of these veterans has not been reported.¹⁵ The CLC veteran population, with known higher vulnerability to infection and chronic diseases, is epidemiologically different from the general nursing home population.^15-18 To address these literature gaps, we present the first report of COVID- 19 testing with CT/CN value correlations in the high-risk veteran CLC population.

Methods

A retrospective review of all COVID-19 CT/CN testing at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) CLC in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from March 28, 2020, to April 24, 2020, was performed with a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Information System Architecture VistA/FileMan search. Only veteran residents were included in this review. Data collected included initial and serial test results, CT/CN on positive test results, test dates, testing platform used, demographic information (age, self-reported ethnicity, and sex), and clinical follow-up information. Health records were reviewed retrospectively to identify death, the first day after diagnosis with no documented symptoms, or hospitalization status.

RT-PCR testing was performed with the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Abbott m2000 platform and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Cepheid Infinity platform. The Xpert Xpress assay gave 2 CT values for the E and N2 targets on positive samples.¹⁹ For this assay to indicate a positive specimen, amplification by RT-PCR of the N2 target or both the N2 and E target is required. The Xpert Xpress assay results as presumptive positive if only the E target amplified. This assay counts a maximum of 45 cycles. The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay gave 1 CN derived from the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and N targets on positive samples.20 The Abbott assay on the m2000 counts a maximum of 37 cycles. The CT/CN value is the number of cycles required by RT-PCR for the fluorescence signal to cross a threshold value exceeding background level.^19,20

Samples that are negative for COVID-19 by RT-PCR do not produce a CT/CN value. Although both instruments were used for RT-PCR, the precise CT/CN values are not interchangeable and CT/CN observations over time between the 2 instruments during the disease course would be based on CT/CN value movement (general upward or downward trend) rather than absolute CT/CN differences. Both assays have been approved by emergency use authorization as qualitative tests for the presence/absence of COVID-19. Although the CT/CN value is available to laboratory staff after test completion, the CT/CN value is not reported routinely in the patient health record. All veteran patients identified on the initial review from March 28, 2020, to April 24, 2020, had all serial COVID-19 testing recorded until November 10, 2020. The CN values at the limit of detection (LOD) for the Abbott m2000 platform from the initial validation study were reviewed for reference.²¹

Results

Of 80 patients, 25 (31%) were COVID-19 positive over the course of testing. The study population had a mean age of 73.5 years; 92% were aged > 60 years. The group was predominantly male (79 male vs 1 female). Among the 77 patients with a stated ethnicity, 39 (51%) were African American. In comparison, 43% of residents in Philadelphia County are African American (Table).^22,23 Additionally, a previously published total COVID-19 tested population by ethnicity at the same regional VAMC revealed 46.8% of tested veteran patients were African American. ²⁴ Three patients had no stated ethnicity. Among those who tested positive, 11 were African American patients, 12 were White patients, and 2 had no stated ethnicity. Four patients tested positive on their first test. The other 21 patients were positive on repeat testing. Interestingly, 6 patients had 1 initial negative test before a positive test, 6 patients had 2, 8 patients had 3, and 1 patient had 4 initial negative tests before a positive test result. Among the 25 positive patients, 22 were either positive within 10 days of the initial negative test result or initially positive (Figure 2). Three patients who tested positive after 10 days did so at 16, 20, and 21 days after the initial negative test result. Among the 25 positive patients, 23 had initial and serial testing from both the Abbott and Xpert Xpress assays. The remaining 2 positive patients had initial and serial testing from the Abbott assay exclusively.

Only positive COVID-19 results by RTPCR produced a CT/CN value. After disease resolution with a negative test, no CT/CN value was produced with the negative test result on either testing platform. Because repeat testing after the initial positive result took place no sooner than 10 days, we observed that the CT/CN value increased after the initial positive result until the disease resolved, and a negative result was obtained (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0276). A t test comparing the initial CT/CN value to the value more than 10 days after the initial positive showed the CT/CN was statistically significantly higher (P < .05).

Prompt repeat testing after the initial test can show a decrease in the CT/CN value because of increasing viral load before the expected increase until disease resolution if the initial test caught the infection early. Twelve patients had a negative test result between 2 serial positive results. These negative test results occurred later, near the end of the disease course. Among the 12 patients with this positive-negativepositive CT/CN pattern, 7 were symptomatic and no longer had documented symptoms or hospitalization around the time of this positive-negative-positive pattern. Four of these individuals were asymptomatic during the entire infection course. One of the 12 patients with this pattern expired with the negative result occurring on day 27 of the disease in the context of rising CT/CN. One of these 12 patients only had a presumptive positive test result on the Cepheid because it detected only the E target with a CT value of 38.7. In 1 of the 12 patients, the negative test result occurred between 2 positive test results with CT/CN values < 20 (12.05 and 19.05 for the positive tests before and after the negative result, respectively). When the initial CT/CN values was separated based on ethnicity, the average CT/CN value for African Americans (23.3) was higher than for other ethnicities (19.9), although it did not reach statistical significance (P = .35).

Ten of the 25 patients testing positive were admitted to the hospital, including 1 admitted 15 days before diagnosis (patient 20) and 1 admitted 80 days after diagnosis (patient 7). Among these 10 patients, 6 were admitted to the intensive care unit, including patient 7. None of the patients were intubated. Three of the 10 admitted patients died (patients 7, 20, and 24). Patient 7 was a 79-year-old male with a history of dementia, cerebrovascular accident, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease with symptoms of lethargy and refusal of oral intake when he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He was admitted 80 days after diagnosis for hyponatremia and acute renal failure, with death on day 87 recorded as complications from the earlier COVID-19 infection. Patient 20, an 89-year-old male with a history of dementia, chronic kidney disease, and hyperlipidemia, had been admitted with fever, cough, and leukocytosis 17 days before COVID-19 diagnosis. He continued to be symptomatic after diagnosis with development of hypotension, dehydration, and refusal of oral intake while on comfort measures/endof- life care and died 15 days after COVID- 19 infection diagnosis. Patient 24 was a 96-year-old male with history of heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, prostate carcinoma, and dementia who developed a cough at the time of diagnosis; because of his underlying condition, he remained in the CLC on comfort care. His symptoms, including hypoxia, worsened until he died 7 days after diagnosis.

Among the 25 patients, 17 were symptomatic at the time of diagnosis; the 14 initially symptomatic patients who survived improved clinically and returned to baseline. Eight of the 25 patients were asymptomatic initially and 3 developed symptoms 2 to 5 days after diagnosis. Only 1 patient who remained asymptomatic was admitted for inability to adhere to quarantine at the CLC. Review of the health records of all surviving symptomatic patients showed symptom resolution with return to baseline that corresponds to an increasing CT/CN value. A 1-tailed t test comparing the initial CT/ CN at the time of diagnosis to the last CT/CN value for symptomatic patients who recovered revealed a statistically significant increase (P < .05). For the symptomatic, symptom resolution and hospital discharge took (if required) a mean 20 days (range, 7-46). Among those who were not hospitalized, symptoms resolved in 7 to 36 days (18 days). Among those requiring hospitalization at any time (excluding patients who died or were asymptomatic), symptom and hospitalization resolution took a mean 22 days (range, 10-46). Asymptomatic patients (patients 8, 10, 15, 16, and 25) also showed increasing CT/CN value during the infection course, although there was no correlation with the continued lack of symptoms.

During the initial validation of the Abbott m2000 instrument, an LOD study included concentrations of 1000, 500, 250, 100, 70, 60, and 50 virus copies/mL (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0276).21 The average CN at 100 virus copies/mL—the manufacturer provided LOD in the instructions for use—was 25.74.20 At a concentration of one-half that (50 virus copies/mL), the average CN was 28.39.

Discussion

This is the first study in the English literature to track CT/CN values as part of serial testing of a veteran CLC. Widescale testing and repeat screening in the absence of symptoms of nursing home residents would identify those who are infected and allow providers to track viral load clearance.^9-14 CT/CN values, when serially tracked during the infection course, appear to increase with illness resolution, consistent with earlier reports that CT/CN correlates with viral load.^8-14 Serial CT/CN values that are high (> 25) and continue to increase with each test suggest progression toward disease resolution or viral RNA clearance.^8-14 After symptom resolution, patients can have a persistent low level of viral shedding (corresponding to a high CT/CN value).^10-14,25 Near the end of disease resolution, a negative serial RT-PCR sample test before a subsequent positive might be a promising clinical sign of near disease recovery. Once the viral load is low with a CT/CN significantly higher than 25, some specimens might result as negative but turn up positive on subsequent sampling with a high CT/CN value. This pattern, with attendant high CT/CN values for the positive results, are consistent with the known effect of viral load (ie, a low viral load correlates to a high CT/CN) and adequacy of specimen collection on CT/CN values^.25 If the patient’s viral load is low, the sample collected might have a viral load at or near the testing platform’s LOD.

For Abbott m2000, the manufacturer provided LOD is 100 virus copies/mL, although the instrument was able to detect virus concentrations below that level during the initial validation.²⁰ The actual LOD of the instrument at our institution is < 100 virus copies/mL. For the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay, the manufacturer-provided LOD is 250 virus copies/mL.19 An LOD study including samples below the manufacturer-provided LOD was not part of the initial validation study for the Xpert Xpress assay. Nonetheless, the virus concentration of samples with very high CT values at or near the maximum CT value of 45 is expected to be at or near the platform’s actual LOD.

If the samples collected near the end of the patient’s disease course have viral loads near these low concentrations, the encouraging positive-negative-positive pattern with high CT/CN values might be a promising sign for viral clearance. On the other hand, a positive-negative-positive pattern in the setting of low CT/CN values before and after the negative test might indicate poor sampling for the negative specimen. The back-and-forth or positive-negative-positive pattern generally appears to indicate near resolution of the infection course, although clinical correlation is necessary to rule out inadequate sampling earlier in the disease course or prolonged viral RNA shedding.^9-14 In all of the surviving symptomatic patients who showed the positive-negative-positive pattern, this sign occurred around or after symptom resolution. It also is important to consider that in some patients, SARS-CoV-2 RNA might remain detectable with increasing CT/CN after symptom resolution, and samples from these patients might not result positive. Therefore, CT/CN values cannot be interpreted without considering the clinical picture.²⁵

Studies on infectiousness and virus culture from COVID-19 samples with CT/ CN correlation have shown that patients with high CT/CN at the end of their disease course might not be as infectious.^9-14,25 Because 1 patient had a presumptive positive result after the negative result, this study shows that this positive-negative-positive pattern could include presumptive positive results. Also, in the setting of a recent positive result on the same testing platform, a patient with this pattern is presumed to be positive for COVID-19 RNA because of scant viral material.

Taiwan’s public health response to the outbreak illustrates the ability to mitigate an outbreak throughout a society.²⁶ These actions could help blunt an outbreak within a civilian nursing home population.⁵ Mitigation within a veteran CLC population has been documented, but the study, which focused on mitigation, did not consider CT/CN values, demographic distribution, testing access of the studied population, or laboratory findings related to disease pathophysiology.¹⁵ A key ingredient in widescale, serial testing is the availability of a rapid turnaround from testing in-house that allowed identification within 24 hours instead of several days at a reference laboratory. ¹⁵ Rapid widescale testing would allow clinical teams to optimize the Triangle of Benefit of Widescale Timely Tests for CLC (Figure 3).¹⁵ Timely laboratory testing remains pivotal for CLC veteran residents to aid successful clinical triage and management. Reporting serial CT/CN values can provide additional information to clinicians about the disease course because CT/ CN correlates with viral load, which varies based on where the patient is in the disease course.^9-14 CT/CN values carry significant prognostic value, particularly with respect to intubation and mortality.⁸

Limitations

Important limitations to our study include the use of 2 separate RT-PCR platforms. Using different RT-PCR platforms is common in clinical laboratories trying to take advantage of the unique characteristics of different platforms—for example, turnaround time vs high throughput— to manage COVID-19 testing workflow.²⁵ However, the exact CT/CN values obtained from each platform might not translate to the other, and the general trend (CT/CN values are rising or falling across serial tests) rather than a single value could be useful for clinical correlation. Even when the same platform is used for the serial testing, CT/CN values can be affected by adequacy of specimen collection; therefore, clinical correlation and considering the trend in CT/CN values is necessary for interpretation.^10-14,25 Because of the known trend in viral dynamics, a positive specimen collected with a high CT/CN followed by a subsequent (within 2 days) positive specimen collected with a low CT/CN might be compatible with early detection of COVID- 19 infection in the appropriate clinical context. ^10-14 However, detection late in the infection course or even after the symptomatic disease resolved with prolonged viral shedding might show serial positive samples with increasing CT/CN values.^10-14

Patients with prolonged viral shedding might not be infectious.27 Because of the clinical correlation required for interpretation and the other factors that might affect CT/CN values, recommendations advise against using CT/CN values in clinical practice at this time, although these recommendations could change with future research.25 Serial CT/CN values have the potential, if appropriately correlated with the clinical picture, to provide useful information, such as whether the viral load of the sample is relatively high or low and increasing or decreasing.

Veterans, as a population, are more susceptible to poor health outcomes and morbidity compared with similar civilian counterparts.^2,14-16 Veteran CLC patients likely would experience worse outcomes with COVID-19, including more infections, expiration, and morbidity compared with similar general population nursing homes. Similar to what had been reported for the civilian population, a trend (high CT/CN values early in the disease course with repeat testing needed to detect all positives followed by lower CT/CN value to correlate with increased viral load and then increased CT/CN value as the infection resolved) also was observed in this veteran population.

It has been extensively documented that minority groups experience decreased health care access and worse health outcomes. ^28-30 Considering the critical medical supply shortages, including personal protective equipment, ventilators, and even testing supplies, there is the potential for a resource access disparity by ethnicity.^28-31 Because the VA does not depend on measures of wealth and privilege such as health insurance, there was no disparity noted in access to testing by race or ethnicity at the VAMC CLC. When considering the health outcome of viral load from the measured CT/CN value, the viral loads of African American patients and those of other ethnicities was not significantly different in this study.

Conclusions

This is the first study to bring up critical points including serial CT/CN value correlation in RT-PCR tests, demographic distributions demonstrating easy and equal access in a veteran nursing home to COVID-19 testing, and clinical laboratory signs related to disease pathophysiology. Unlike other populations who have undergone serial CT/CN monitoring, nursing homes represent a particularly vulnerable population who require measures to prevent the spread and mitigate outbreaks of COVID-19.^2,4,5 Test measurements obtained such as the CT/CN value during routine clinical care can provide useful information for public health, epidemiologic, or clinical purposes with appropriate correlation to clinical and other laboratory parameters. This study demonstrates early intervention of serial testing of an outbreak in a veterans nursing home with CT/CN value correlation.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is more severe in individuals with underlying illnesses. Because complete social distancing might be more difficult in nursing homes and community living centers (CLCs), public health leaders and clinicians have been concerned about the epidemiology and disease course in nursing homes even before the COVID-19 pandemic.1-7 A report of a COVID-19 outbreak in a nursing home facility in King County, Washington, documented a 33.7% overall fatality rate for residents and 52.4% among the most critically ill.^4,5 The experience at King County, Washington, shows that proactive steps to identify, monitor, and apply preventive control measures is important for future outbreaks.⁵

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing produces a cycle threshold (CT) or cycle number (CN) that correlates with viral load and infectiousness. ^8-14 CT/CN represents the number of RT-PCR cycles required for the fluorescent signal to cross the detection threshold (exceed background level) and is inversely proportional to the viral load. Effectively, the higher the viral load, the lower the CT/ CN value (Figure 1). Tracking CT/CN values was not documented in the Washington nursing home outbreak. Reports of COVID- 19 testing in CLCs during outbreaks are sparse, and CT/CN values and demographic distribution of these veterans has not been reported.¹⁵ The CLC veteran population, with known higher vulnerability to infection and chronic diseases, is epidemiologically different from the general nursing home population.^15-18 To address these literature gaps, we present the first report of COVID- 19 testing with CT/CN value correlations in the high-risk veteran CLC population.

Methods

A retrospective review of all COVID-19 CT/CN testing at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) CLC in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from March 28, 2020, to April 24, 2020, was performed with a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Information System Architecture VistA/FileMan search. Only veteran residents were included in this review. Data collected included initial and serial test results, CT/CN on positive test results, test dates, testing platform used, demographic information (age, self-reported ethnicity, and sex), and clinical follow-up information. Health records were reviewed retrospectively to identify death, the first day after diagnosis with no documented symptoms, or hospitalization status.

RT-PCR testing was performed with the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Abbott m2000 platform and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Cepheid Infinity platform. The Xpert Xpress assay gave 2 CT values for the E and N2 targets on positive samples.¹⁹ For this assay to indicate a positive specimen, amplification by RT-PCR of the N2 target or both the N2 and E target is required. The Xpert Xpress assay results as presumptive positive if only the E target amplified. This assay counts a maximum of 45 cycles. The Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay gave 1 CN derived from the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and N targets on positive samples.20 The Abbott assay on the m2000 counts a maximum of 37 cycles. The CT/CN value is the number of cycles required by RT-PCR for the fluorescence signal to cross a threshold value exceeding background level.^19,20

Samples that are negative for COVID-19 by RT-PCR do not produce a CT/CN value. Although both instruments were used for RT-PCR, the precise CT/CN values are not interchangeable and CT/CN observations over time between the 2 instruments during the disease course would be based on CT/CN value movement (general upward or downward trend) rather than absolute CT/CN differences. Both assays have been approved by emergency use authorization as qualitative tests for the presence/absence of COVID-19. Although the CT/CN value is available to laboratory staff after test completion, the CT/CN value is not reported routinely in the patient health record. All veteran patients identified on the initial review from March 28, 2020, to April 24, 2020, had all serial COVID-19 testing recorded until November 10, 2020. The CN values at the limit of detection (LOD) for the Abbott m2000 platform from the initial validation study were reviewed for reference.²¹

Results

Of 80 patients, 25 (31%) were COVID-19 positive over the course of testing. The study population had a mean age of 73.5 years; 92% were aged > 60 years. The group was predominantly male (79 male vs 1 female). Among the 77 patients with a stated ethnicity, 39 (51%) were African American. In comparison, 43% of residents in Philadelphia County are African American (Table).^22,23 Additionally, a previously published total COVID-19 tested population by ethnicity at the same regional VAMC revealed 46.8% of tested veteran patients were African American. ²⁴ Three patients had no stated ethnicity. Among those who tested positive, 11 were African American patients, 12 were White patients, and 2 had no stated ethnicity. Four patients tested positive on their first test. The other 21 patients were positive on repeat testing. Interestingly, 6 patients had 1 initial negative test before a positive test, 6 patients had 2, 8 patients had 3, and 1 patient had 4 initial negative tests before a positive test result. Among the 25 positive patients, 22 were either positive within 10 days of the initial negative test result or initially positive (Figure 2). Three patients who tested positive after 10 days did so at 16, 20, and 21 days after the initial negative test result. Among the 25 positive patients, 23 had initial and serial testing from both the Abbott and Xpert Xpress assays. The remaining 2 positive patients had initial and serial testing from the Abbott assay exclusively.

Only positive COVID-19 results by RTPCR produced a CT/CN value. After disease resolution with a negative test, no CT/CN value was produced with the negative test result on either testing platform. Because repeat testing after the initial positive result took place no sooner than 10 days, we observed that the CT/CN value increased after the initial positive result until the disease resolved, and a negative result was obtained (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0276). A t test comparing the initial CT/CN value to the value more than 10 days after the initial positive showed the CT/CN was statistically significantly higher (P < .05).

Prompt repeat testing after the initial test can show a decrease in the CT/CN value because of increasing viral load before the expected increase until disease resolution if the initial test caught the infection early. Twelve patients had a negative test result between 2 serial positive results. These negative test results occurred later, near the end of the disease course. Among the 12 patients with this positive-negativepositive CT/CN pattern, 7 were symptomatic and no longer had documented symptoms or hospitalization around the time of this positive-negative-positive pattern. Four of these individuals were asymptomatic during the entire infection course. One of the 12 patients with this pattern expired with the negative result occurring on day 27 of the disease in the context of rising CT/CN. One of these 12 patients only had a presumptive positive test result on the Cepheid because it detected only the E target with a CT value of 38.7. In 1 of the 12 patients, the negative test result occurred between 2 positive test results with CT/CN values < 20 (12.05 and 19.05 for the positive tests before and after the negative result, respectively). When the initial CT/CN values was separated based on ethnicity, the average CT/CN value for African Americans (23.3) was higher than for other ethnicities (19.9), although it did not reach statistical significance (P = .35).

Ten of the 25 patients testing positive were admitted to the hospital, including 1 admitted 15 days before diagnosis (patient 20) and 1 admitted 80 days after diagnosis (patient 7). Among these 10 patients, 6 were admitted to the intensive care unit, including patient 7. None of the patients were intubated. Three of the 10 admitted patients died (patients 7, 20, and 24). Patient 7 was a 79-year-old male with a history of dementia, cerebrovascular accident, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease with symptoms of lethargy and refusal of oral intake when he was diagnosed with COVID-19. He was admitted 80 days after diagnosis for hyponatremia and acute renal failure, with death on day 87 recorded as complications from the earlier COVID-19 infection. Patient 20, an 89-year-old male with a history of dementia, chronic kidney disease, and hyperlipidemia, had been admitted with fever, cough, and leukocytosis 17 days before COVID-19 diagnosis. He continued to be symptomatic after diagnosis with development of hypotension, dehydration, and refusal of oral intake while on comfort measures/endof- life care and died 15 days after COVID- 19 infection diagnosis. Patient 24 was a 96-year-old male with history of heart failure, hypertension, coronary artery disease, prostate carcinoma, and dementia who developed a cough at the time of diagnosis; because of his underlying condition, he remained in the CLC on comfort care. His symptoms, including hypoxia, worsened until he died 7 days after diagnosis.

Among the 25 patients, 17 were symptomatic at the time of diagnosis; the 14 initially symptomatic patients who survived improved clinically and returned to baseline. Eight of the 25 patients were asymptomatic initially and 3 developed symptoms 2 to 5 days after diagnosis. Only 1 patient who remained asymptomatic was admitted for inability to adhere to quarantine at the CLC. Review of the health records of all surviving symptomatic patients showed symptom resolution with return to baseline that corresponds to an increasing CT/CN value. A 1-tailed t test comparing the initial CT/ CN at the time of diagnosis to the last CT/CN value for symptomatic patients who recovered revealed a statistically significant increase (P < .05). For the symptomatic, symptom resolution and hospital discharge took (if required) a mean 20 days (range, 7-46). Among those who were not hospitalized, symptoms resolved in 7 to 36 days (18 days). Among those requiring hospitalization at any time (excluding patients who died or were asymptomatic), symptom and hospitalization resolution took a mean 22 days (range, 10-46). Asymptomatic patients (patients 8, 10, 15, 16, and 25) also showed increasing CT/CN value during the infection course, although there was no correlation with the continued lack of symptoms.

During the initial validation of the Abbott m2000 instrument, an LOD study included concentrations of 1000, 500, 250, 100, 70, 60, and 50 virus copies/mL (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0276).21 The average CN at 100 virus copies/mL—the manufacturer provided LOD in the instructions for use—was 25.74.20 At a concentration of one-half that (50 virus copies/mL), the average CN was 28.39.

Discussion

This is the first study in the English literature to track CT/CN values as part of serial testing of a veteran CLC. Widescale testing and repeat screening in the absence of symptoms of nursing home residents would identify those who are infected and allow providers to track viral load clearance.^9-14 CT/CN values, when serially tracked during the infection course, appear to increase with illness resolution, consistent with earlier reports that CT/CN correlates with viral load.^8-14 Serial CT/CN values that are high (> 25) and continue to increase with each test suggest progression toward disease resolution or viral RNA clearance.^8-14 After symptom resolution, patients can have a persistent low level of viral shedding (corresponding to a high CT/CN value).^10-14,25 Near the end of disease resolution, a negative serial RT-PCR sample test before a subsequent positive might be a promising clinical sign of near disease recovery. Once the viral load is low with a CT/CN significantly higher than 25, some specimens might result as negative but turn up positive on subsequent sampling with a high CT/CN value. This pattern, with attendant high CT/CN values for the positive results, are consistent with the known effect of viral load (ie, a low viral load correlates to a high CT/CN) and adequacy of specimen collection on CT/CN values^.25 If the patient’s viral load is low, the sample collected might have a viral load at or near the testing platform’s LOD.

For Abbott m2000, the manufacturer provided LOD is 100 virus copies/mL, although the instrument was able to detect virus concentrations below that level during the initial validation.²⁰ The actual LOD of the instrument at our institution is < 100 virus copies/mL. For the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay, the manufacturer-provided LOD is 250 virus copies/mL.19 An LOD study including samples below the manufacturer-provided LOD was not part of the initial validation study for the Xpert Xpress assay. Nonetheless, the virus concentration of samples with very high CT values at or near the maximum CT value of 45 is expected to be at or near the platform’s actual LOD.

If the samples collected near the end of the patient’s disease course have viral loads near these low concentrations, the encouraging positive-negative-positive pattern with high CT/CN values might be a promising sign for viral clearance. On the other hand, a positive-negative-positive pattern in the setting of low CT/CN values before and after the negative test might indicate poor sampling for the negative specimen. The back-and-forth or positive-negative-positive pattern generally appears to indicate near resolution of the infection course, although clinical correlation is necessary to rule out inadequate sampling earlier in the disease course or prolonged viral RNA shedding.^9-14 In all of the surviving symptomatic patients who showed the positive-negative-positive pattern, this sign occurred around or after symptom resolution. It also is important to consider that in some patients, SARS-CoV-2 RNA might remain detectable with increasing CT/CN after symptom resolution, and samples from these patients might not result positive. Therefore, CT/CN values cannot be interpreted without considering the clinical picture.²⁵

Studies on infectiousness and virus culture from COVID-19 samples with CT/ CN correlation have shown that patients with high CT/CN at the end of their disease course might not be as infectious.^9-14,25 Because 1 patient had a presumptive positive result after the negative result, this study shows that this positive-negative-positive pattern could include presumptive positive results. Also, in the setting of a recent positive result on the same testing platform, a patient with this pattern is presumed to be positive for COVID-19 RNA because of scant viral material.

Taiwan’s public health response to the outbreak illustrates the ability to mitigate an outbreak throughout a society.²⁶ These actions could help blunt an outbreak within a civilian nursing home population.⁵ Mitigation within a veteran CLC population has been documented, but the study, which focused on mitigation, did not consider CT/CN values, demographic distribution, testing access of the studied population, or laboratory findings related to disease pathophysiology.¹⁵ A key ingredient in widescale, serial testing is the availability of a rapid turnaround from testing in-house that allowed identification within 24 hours instead of several days at a reference laboratory. ¹⁵ Rapid widescale testing would allow clinical teams to optimize the Triangle of Benefit of Widescale Timely Tests for CLC (Figure 3).¹⁵ Timely laboratory testing remains pivotal for CLC veteran residents to aid successful clinical triage and management. Reporting serial CT/CN values can provide additional information to clinicians about the disease course because CT/ CN correlates with viral load, which varies based on where the patient is in the disease course.^9-14 CT/CN values carry significant prognostic value, particularly with respect to intubation and mortality.⁸

Limitations

Important limitations to our study include the use of 2 separate RT-PCR platforms. Using different RT-PCR platforms is common in clinical laboratories trying to take advantage of the unique characteristics of different platforms—for example, turnaround time vs high throughput— to manage COVID-19 testing workflow.²⁵ However, the exact CT/CN values obtained from each platform might not translate to the other, and the general trend (CT/CN values are rising or falling across serial tests) rather than a single value could be useful for clinical correlation. Even when the same platform is used for the serial testing, CT/CN values can be affected by adequacy of specimen collection; therefore, clinical correlation and considering the trend in CT/CN values is necessary for interpretation.^10-14,25 Because of the known trend in viral dynamics, a positive specimen collected with a high CT/CN followed by a subsequent (within 2 days) positive specimen collected with a low CT/CN might be compatible with early detection of COVID- 19 infection in the appropriate clinical context. ^10-14 However, detection late in the infection course or even after the symptomatic disease resolved with prolonged viral shedding might show serial positive samples with increasing CT/CN values.^10-14

Patients with prolonged viral shedding might not be infectious.27 Because of the clinical correlation required for interpretation and the other factors that might affect CT/CN values, recommendations advise against using CT/CN values in clinical practice at this time, although these recommendations could change with future research.25 Serial CT/CN values have the potential, if appropriately correlated with the clinical picture, to provide useful information, such as whether the viral load of the sample is relatively high or low and increasing or decreasing.

Veterans, as a population, are more susceptible to poor health outcomes and morbidity compared with similar civilian counterparts.^2,14-16 Veteran CLC patients likely would experience worse outcomes with COVID-19, including more infections, expiration, and morbidity compared with similar general population nursing homes. Similar to what had been reported for the civilian population, a trend (high CT/CN values early in the disease course with repeat testing needed to detect all positives followed by lower CT/CN value to correlate with increased viral load and then increased CT/CN value as the infection resolved) also was observed in this veteran population.

It has been extensively documented that minority groups experience decreased health care access and worse health outcomes. ^28-30 Considering the critical medical supply shortages, including personal protective equipment, ventilators, and even testing supplies, there is the potential for a resource access disparity by ethnicity.^28-31 Because the VA does not depend on measures of wealth and privilege such as health insurance, there was no disparity noted in access to testing by race or ethnicity at the VAMC CLC. When considering the health outcome of viral load from the measured CT/CN value, the viral loads of African American patients and those of other ethnicities was not significantly different in this study.

Conclusions

This is the first study to bring up critical points including serial CT/CN value correlation in RT-PCR tests, demographic distributions demonstrating easy and equal access in a veteran nursing home to COVID-19 testing, and clinical laboratory signs related to disease pathophysiology. Unlike other populations who have undergone serial CT/CN monitoring, nursing homes represent a particularly vulnerable population who require measures to prevent the spread and mitigate outbreaks of COVID-19.^2,4,5 Test measurements obtained such as the CT/CN value during routine clinical care can provide useful information for public health, epidemiologic, or clinical purposes with appropriate correlation to clinical and other laboratory parameters. This study demonstrates early intervention of serial testing of an outbreak in a veterans nursing home with CT/CN value correlation.

The Food and Drug Administration on June 17 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for use in children 6 months of age and older, one of the final steps in a long-awaited authorization process to extend protection to the youngest of Americans.

The agency’s move comes after a closely watched FDA advisory group vote earlier this week, which resulted in a unanimous vote in favor of the FDA authorizing both vaccines in this age group.

“The FDA’s evaluation and analysis of the safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing data of these vaccines was rigorous and comprehensive, supporting the EUAs,” the agency said in a news release.

The data show that the “known and potential benefits” of the vaccines outweigh any potential risks, the agency said.

The Moderna vaccine is authorized as a two-dose primary series in children 6 months to 17 years of age. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized as a three-dose primary series in children 6 months up to 4 years of age. Pfizer’s vaccine was already authorized in children 5 years old and older.

Now all eyes are on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is expected to decide on the final regulatory hurdle at a meeting June 18. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has scheduled a vote on whether to give the vaccines the green light.

If ACIP gives the OK, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, is expected to issue recommendations for use shortly thereafter.

Following these final regulatory steps, parents could start bringing their children to pediatricians, family doctors, or local pharmacies for vaccination as early as June 20.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on June 17 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for use in children 6 months of age and older, one of the final steps in a long-awaited authorization process to extend protection to the youngest of Americans.

The agency’s move comes after a closely watched FDA advisory group vote earlier this week, which resulted in a unanimous vote in favor of the FDA authorizing both vaccines in this age group.

“The FDA’s evaluation and analysis of the safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing data of these vaccines was rigorous and comprehensive, supporting the EUAs,” the agency said in a news release.

The data show that the “known and potential benefits” of the vaccines outweigh any potential risks, the agency said.

The Moderna vaccine is authorized as a two-dose primary series in children 6 months to 17 years of age. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized as a three-dose primary series in children 6 months up to 4 years of age. Pfizer’s vaccine was already authorized in children 5 years old and older.

Now all eyes are on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is expected to decide on the final regulatory hurdle at a meeting June 18. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has scheduled a vote on whether to give the vaccines the green light.

If ACIP gives the OK, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, is expected to issue recommendations for use shortly thereafter.

Following these final regulatory steps, parents could start bringing their children to pediatricians, family doctors, or local pharmacies for vaccination as early as June 20.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on June 17 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for use in children 6 months of age and older, one of the final steps in a long-awaited authorization process to extend protection to the youngest of Americans.

The agency’s move comes after a closely watched FDA advisory group vote earlier this week, which resulted in a unanimous vote in favor of the FDA authorizing both vaccines in this age group.

“The FDA’s evaluation and analysis of the safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing data of these vaccines was rigorous and comprehensive, supporting the EUAs,” the agency said in a news release.

The data show that the “known and potential benefits” of the vaccines outweigh any potential risks, the agency said.

The Moderna vaccine is authorized as a two-dose primary series in children 6 months to 17 years of age. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized as a three-dose primary series in children 6 months up to 4 years of age. Pfizer’s vaccine was already authorized in children 5 years old and older.

Now all eyes are on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is expected to decide on the final regulatory hurdle at a meeting June 18. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has scheduled a vote on whether to give the vaccines the green light.

If ACIP gives the OK, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, is expected to issue recommendations for use shortly thereafter.

Following these final regulatory steps, parents could start bringing their children to pediatricians, family doctors, or local pharmacies for vaccination as early as June 20.

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

There may be a link between the recent unexplained cases of hepatitis in children and prior coronavirus infections, according to new research from Israel.

The study involves five children in Israel who had mild cases of COVID-19 who went on to develop hepatitis; two of these children required liver transplants. But clinicians are cautious about drawing conclusions from such a small study.

“All you can say is that these five cases seem to have proximity to COVID-19, and COVID-19 may be able to cause pediatric liver complications,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University in Chicago. She was not involved with the study.

While COVID-19 could be one explanation for these hepatitis cases, it is also possible that the two are unrelated, said William Balistreri, MD, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He also is unaffiliated with the study.

Hepatitis is rare in children, and between 30% and 50% of these pediatric cases have no known cause, according to the CDC.

Since April 2022, children with hepatitis of an unexplained cause have garnered global attention. The United Kingdom now has 240 confirmed cases, the United States is investigating 290 cases, and Israel has reported 12 cases to the World Health Organization. Many investigators think that these liver problems could be related to adenovirus – a common infection in children that normally causes cold or flu-like symptoms – because more than half of global cases tested for the virus have been positive, according to the WHO. About 12% of children with unexplained hepatitis have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, but investigators are considering the possibility that some cases may be related to prior infections.

The study documents five patients, 3-months to 13 years old, with prior  coronavirus infection who later developed hepatitis. All were treated at Schneider Children’s Medical Hospital in Petah Tikva, Israel, during 2021. The paper was published in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. Two patients, a 3-month-old and 5-month-old, needed liver transplants. The other three patients (two 8-year-olds and a 13-year-old) were treated with steroids. None of the five children had received any vaccinations against COVID-19. The time between COVID-19 infection and liver problems ranged from 21 to 130 days.

“It took time to be convinced that this could be COVID-related,” said senior study author Orith Waisbourd-Zinman, MD, director of pediatric liver disease service at Schneider Children’s Medical Hospital. “It’s something that wasn’t described.”

Sudden-onset hepatitis after COVID-19 has been recorded in adults, and the virus has been associated with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). The condition causes inflammation through the body, including the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

“We know that COVID can be mischievous, and children are no more exempt from that than adults,” Dr. Reau said.

Liver samples taken from these five patients did not test positive for COVID-19, similar to how liver samples have tested negative for adenovirus in more recent hepatitis cases around the world. Dr. Waisbourd-Zinman suggested that in these patients, hepatitis may have been brought on by an inflammatory response that was triggered by the virus. 

Still, there are notable differences between these five cases and current cases internationally. These five children became sick during the period of December 2020 to September 2021, whereas all current counted cases in the United Kingdom occurred after January 2022. The first cases in the United States took place in October 2021. It could be that there were similar hepatitis cases before that were not identified, Dr. Reau said.

The ages of the Israeli children with hepatitis also differ from the cases seen globally. More than three-fourths of these reported hepatitis cases occurred in children under 5, the WHO reports, though affected individuals have been as young as 1-month-old up to 16 years old. In the United Kingdom, which accounts for about a third of cases reported to the WHO, most children with unexplained hepatitis have been between 3 and 5 years old.

More research is needed to tease out any relationship between prior COVID-19 infection and liver inflammation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“I’m not sure what to make of any of it yet. We know that SARS-CoV-2 can alter immune responses ... so it wouldn’t surprise me,” if COVID-19 and these hepatitis cases were linked, he said. “It’s just that we need more information.”

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

There may be a link between the recent unexplained cases of hepatitis in children and prior coronavirus infections, according to new research from Israel.

The study involves five children in Israel who had mild cases of COVID-19 who went on to develop hepatitis; two of these children required liver transplants. But clinicians are cautious about drawing conclusions from such a small study.

“All you can say is that these five cases seem to have proximity to COVID-19, and COVID-19 may be able to cause pediatric liver complications,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University in Chicago. She was not involved with the study.

While COVID-19 could be one explanation for these hepatitis cases, it is also possible that the two are unrelated, said William Balistreri, MD, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He also is unaffiliated with the study.

Hepatitis is rare in children, and between 30% and 50% of these pediatric cases have no known cause, according to the CDC.

Since April 2022, children with hepatitis of an unexplained cause have garnered global attention. The United Kingdom now has 240 confirmed cases, the United States is investigating 290 cases, and Israel has reported 12 cases to the World Health Organization. Many investigators think that these liver problems could be related to adenovirus – a common infection in children that normally causes cold or flu-like symptoms – because more than half of global cases tested for the virus have been positive, according to the WHO. About 12% of children with unexplained hepatitis have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, but investigators are considering the possibility that some cases may be related to prior infections.

The study documents five patients, 3-months to 13 years old, with prior  coronavirus infection who later developed hepatitis. All were treated at Schneider Children’s Medical Hospital in Petah Tikva, Israel, during 2021. The paper was published in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. Two patients, a 3-month-old and 5-month-old, needed liver transplants. The other three patients (two 8-year-olds and a 13-year-old) were treated with steroids. None of the five children had received any vaccinations against COVID-19. The time between COVID-19 infection and liver problems ranged from 21 to 130 days.

“It took time to be convinced that this could be COVID-related,” said senior study author Orith Waisbourd-Zinman, MD, director of pediatric liver disease service at Schneider Children’s Medical Hospital. “It’s something that wasn’t described.”

Sudden-onset hepatitis after COVID-19 has been recorded in adults, and the virus has been associated with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). The condition causes inflammation through the body, including the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

“We know that COVID can be mischievous, and children are no more exempt from that than adults,” Dr. Reau said.

Liver samples taken from these five patients did not test positive for COVID-19, similar to how liver samples have tested negative for adenovirus in more recent hepatitis cases around the world. Dr. Waisbourd-Zinman suggested that in these patients, hepatitis may have been brought on by an inflammatory response that was triggered by the virus. 

Still, there are notable differences between these five cases and current cases internationally. These five children became sick during the period of December 2020 to September 2021, whereas all current counted cases in the United Kingdom occurred after January 2022. The first cases in the United States took place in October 2021. It could be that there were similar hepatitis cases before that were not identified, Dr. Reau said.

The ages of the Israeli children with hepatitis also differ from the cases seen globally. More than three-fourths of these reported hepatitis cases occurred in children under 5, the WHO reports, though affected individuals have been as young as 1-month-old up to 16 years old. In the United Kingdom, which accounts for about a third of cases reported to the WHO, most children with unexplained hepatitis have been between 3 and 5 years old.

More research is needed to tease out any relationship between prior COVID-19 infection and liver inflammation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“I’m not sure what to make of any of it yet. We know that SARS-CoV-2 can alter immune responses ... so it wouldn’t surprise me,” if COVID-19 and these hepatitis cases were linked, he said. “It’s just that we need more information.”

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

There may be a link between the recent unexplained cases of hepatitis in children and prior coronavirus infections, according to new research from Israel.

The study involves five children in Israel who had mild cases of COVID-19 who went on to develop hepatitis; two of these children required liver transplants. But clinicians are cautious about drawing conclusions from such a small study.

“All you can say is that these five cases seem to have proximity to COVID-19, and COVID-19 may be able to cause pediatric liver complications,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University in Chicago. She was not involved with the study.

While COVID-19 could be one explanation for these hepatitis cases, it is also possible that the two are unrelated, said William Balistreri, MD, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He also is unaffiliated with the study.

Hepatitis is rare in children, and between 30% and 50% of these pediatric cases have no known cause, according to the CDC.

Since April 2022, children with hepatitis of an unexplained cause have garnered global attention. The United Kingdom now has 240 confirmed cases, the United States is investigating 290 cases, and Israel has reported 12 cases to the World Health Organization. Many investigators think that these liver problems could be related to adenovirus – a common infection in children that normally causes cold or flu-like symptoms – because more than half of global cases tested for the virus have been positive, according to the WHO. About 12% of children with unexplained hepatitis have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, but investigators are considering the possibility that some cases may be related to prior infections.

The study documents five patients, 3-months to 13 years old, with prior  coronavirus infection who later developed hepatitis. All were treated at Schneider Children’s Medical Hospital in Petah Tikva, Israel, during 2021. The paper was published in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. Two patients, a 3-month-old and 5-month-old, needed liver transplants. The other three patients (two 8-year-olds and a 13-year-old) were treated with steroids. None of the five children had received any vaccinations against COVID-19. The time between COVID-19 infection and liver problems ranged from 21 to 130 days.

“It took time to be convinced that this could be COVID-related,” said senior study author Orith Waisbourd-Zinman, MD, director of pediatric liver disease service at Schneider Children’s Medical Hospital. “It’s something that wasn’t described.”

Sudden-onset hepatitis after COVID-19 has been recorded in adults, and the virus has been associated with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). The condition causes inflammation through the body, including the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

“We know that COVID can be mischievous, and children are no more exempt from that than adults,” Dr. Reau said.

Liver samples taken from these five patients did not test positive for COVID-19, similar to how liver samples have tested negative for adenovirus in more recent hepatitis cases around the world. Dr. Waisbourd-Zinman suggested that in these patients, hepatitis may have been brought on by an inflammatory response that was triggered by the virus. 

Still, there are notable differences between these five cases and current cases internationally. These five children became sick during the period of December 2020 to September 2021, whereas all current counted cases in the United Kingdom occurred after January 2022. The first cases in the United States took place in October 2021. It could be that there were similar hepatitis cases before that were not identified, Dr. Reau said.

The ages of the Israeli children with hepatitis also differ from the cases seen globally. More than three-fourths of these reported hepatitis cases occurred in children under 5, the WHO reports, though affected individuals have been as young as 1-month-old up to 16 years old. In the United Kingdom, which accounts for about a third of cases reported to the WHO, most children with unexplained hepatitis have been between 3 and 5 years old.

More research is needed to tease out any relationship between prior COVID-19 infection and liver inflammation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“I’m not sure what to make of any of it yet. We know that SARS-CoV-2 can alter immune responses ... so it wouldn’t surprise me,” if COVID-19 and these hepatitis cases were linked, he said. “It’s just that we need more information.”

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

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A small blood sample and 24 hours might be all that’s needed to find out how strong the immune system is against a first or repeat coronavirus infections.

Scientists created a test that indirectly measures T-cell response – an important, long-term component of immunity that can last long after antibody levels fall off – to a challenge by the virus in whole blood.

The test mimics what can be done in a formal laboratory now but avoids some complicated steps and specialized training for lab personnel. This test, researchers said, is faster, can scale up to test many more people, and can be adapted to detect viral mutations as they emerge in the future.

The study explaining how all this works was published online in Nature Biotechnology.

The test, called dqTACT, could help predict the likelihood of “breakthrough” infections in people who are fully vaccinated and could help determine how frequently people who are immunocompromised might need to be revaccinated, the authors noted.

Infection with the coronavirus and other viruses can trigger a one-two punch from the immunity system – a fast antibody response followed by longer-lasting cellular immunity, including T cells, which “remember” the virus. Cellular immunity can trigger a quick response if the same virus ever shows up again.

The new test adds synthetic viral peptides – strings of amino acids that make up proteins – from the coronavirus to a blood sample. If there is no T-cell reaction within 24 hours, the test is negative. If the peptides trigger T cells, the test can measure the strength of the immune response.

The researchers validated the new test against traditional laboratory testing in 91 people, about half of whom never had COVID-19 and another half who were infected and recovered. The results matched well.

They also found the test predicted immune strength up to 8 months following a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, T-cell response was greater among people who received two doses of a vaccine versus others who received only one immunization.

Studies are ongoing and designed to meet authorization requirements as part of future licensing from the Food and Drug Administration.

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

A small blood sample and 24 hours might be all that’s needed to find out how strong the immune system is against a first or repeat coronavirus infections.

Scientists created a test that indirectly measures T-cell response – an important, long-term component of immunity that can last long after antibody levels fall off – to a challenge by the virus in whole blood.

The test mimics what can be done in a formal laboratory now but avoids some complicated steps and specialized training for lab personnel. This test, researchers said, is faster, can scale up to test many more people, and can be adapted to detect viral mutations as they emerge in the future.

The study explaining how all this works was published online in Nature Biotechnology.

The test, called dqTACT, could help predict the likelihood of “breakthrough” infections in people who are fully vaccinated and could help determine how frequently people who are immunocompromised might need to be revaccinated, the authors noted.

Infection with the coronavirus and other viruses can trigger a one-two punch from the immunity system – a fast antibody response followed by longer-lasting cellular immunity, including T cells, which “remember” the virus. Cellular immunity can trigger a quick response if the same virus ever shows up again.

The new test adds synthetic viral peptides – strings of amino acids that make up proteins – from the coronavirus to a blood sample. If there is no T-cell reaction within 24 hours, the test is negative. If the peptides trigger T cells, the test can measure the strength of the immune response.

The researchers validated the new test against traditional laboratory testing in 91 people, about half of whom never had COVID-19 and another half who were infected and recovered. The results matched well.

They also found the test predicted immune strength up to 8 months following a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, T-cell response was greater among people who received two doses of a vaccine versus others who received only one immunization.

Studies are ongoing and designed to meet authorization requirements as part of future licensing from the Food and Drug Administration.

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

A small blood sample and 24 hours might be all that’s needed to find out how strong the immune system is against a first or repeat coronavirus infections.

Scientists created a test that indirectly measures T-cell response – an important, long-term component of immunity that can last long after antibody levels fall off – to a challenge by the virus in whole blood.

The test mimics what can be done in a formal laboratory now but avoids some complicated steps and specialized training for lab personnel. This test, researchers said, is faster, can scale up to test many more people, and can be adapted to detect viral mutations as they emerge in the future.

The study explaining how all this works was published online in Nature Biotechnology.

The test, called dqTACT, could help predict the likelihood of “breakthrough” infections in people who are fully vaccinated and could help determine how frequently people who are immunocompromised might need to be revaccinated, the authors noted.

Infection with the coronavirus and other viruses can trigger a one-two punch from the immunity system – a fast antibody response followed by longer-lasting cellular immunity, including T cells, which “remember” the virus. Cellular immunity can trigger a quick response if the same virus ever shows up again.

The new test adds synthetic viral peptides – strings of amino acids that make up proteins – from the coronavirus to a blood sample. If there is no T-cell reaction within 24 hours, the test is negative. If the peptides trigger T cells, the test can measure the strength of the immune response.

The researchers validated the new test against traditional laboratory testing in 91 people, about half of whom never had COVID-19 and another half who were infected and recovered. The results matched well.

They also found the test predicted immune strength up to 8 months following a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, T-cell response was greater among people who received two doses of a vaccine versus others who received only one immunization.

Studies are ongoing and designed to meet authorization requirements as part of future licensing from the Food and Drug Administration.

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

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first year of life, new research suggests.

But whether it is exposure to the pandemic or maternal exposure to the virus itself that may harm early childhood neurodevelopment is unclear, caution investigators, led by Roy Perlis, MD, MSc, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In this analysis of 222 offspring of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with the offspring of 7,550 mothers in the control group (not infected) delivered during the same period, we observed neurodevelopmental diagnoses to be significantly more common among exposed offspring, particularly those exposed to third-trimester maternal infection,” they write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Speech and language disorders

The study included 7,772 mostly singleton live births across six hospitals in Massachusetts between March and September 2020, including 222 (2.9%) births to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing during pregnancy.

In all, 14 of 222 children born to SARS-CoV-2–infected mothers (6.3%) were diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the first year of life versus 227 of 7,550 unexposed offspring (3%) (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.79; P = .006).

In models adjusted for preterm delivery, as well as race, ethnicity, insurance status, child sex, and maternal age, COVID-exposed offspring were significantly more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first year of life (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03-3.36; P = .04).

The magnitude of the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was greater with third-trimester SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.23-4.44; P = .01).

The majority of these diagnoses reflected developmental disorders of motor function or speech and language.

The researchers noted that the finding of an association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses at 12 months is in line with a “large body of literature” linking maternal viral infection and maternal immune activation with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.

They cautioned, however, that whether a definitive connection exists between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and adverse neurodevelopment in offspring is not yet known, in part because children born to women infected in the first wave of the pandemic haven’t reached their second birthday – a time when neurodevelopment disorders such as autism are typically diagnosed.

There is also the risk for ascertainment bias arising from greater concern for offspring of infected mothers who were ill during pregnancy. These parents may be more inclined to seek evaluation, and clinicians may be more inclined to diagnose or refer for evaluation, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, as reported by this news organization, the study results support those of research released at the European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress; those results also showed an association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and impaired neurodevelopment in 6-week-old infants.
 

Hypothesis generating

In an accompanying commentary, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said the preliminary findings of Dr. Perlis and colleagues are “critically important, yet many questions remain.”

“Essentially all of what we know now about the effects of in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection is from children who were exposed to the early and Alpha variants of SARS-CoV-2, as those are the only children now old enough to undergo rigorous neurodevelopmental assessments,” Dr. Metz pointed out.

Ultimately, Dr. Metz said it’s not surprising that the pandemic and in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection may adversely affect neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children.

Yet, as a retrospective cohort study, the study can only demonstrate associations, not causality.

“This type of work is intended to be hypothesis generating, and that goal has been accomplished as these preliminary findings generate numerous additional research questions to explore,” Dr. Metz wrote.

Among them: Are there genetic predispositions to adverse outcomes? Will we observe differential effects by SARS-CoV-2 variant, by severity of infection, and by trimester of infection? Is it the virus itself or all of the societal changes that occurred during this period, including differences in how those changes were experienced among those with and without SARS-CoV-2?

“Perhaps the most important question is how do we intervene to help mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic on young children,” Dr. Metz noted.

“Prospective studies to validate these findings, tease out some of the nuance, and identify those at highest risk will help health care practitioners appropriately dedicate resources to improve outcomes as we follow the life course of this generation of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic,” she added.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Perlis is an associate editor for JAMA Network Open but was not involved in the editorial review or decision for the study. Dr. Metz reported receiving personal fees and grants from Pfizer and grants from GestVision.

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

Infants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first year of life, new research suggests.

But whether it is exposure to the pandemic or maternal exposure to the virus itself that may harm early childhood neurodevelopment is unclear, caution investigators, led by Roy Perlis, MD, MSc, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In this analysis of 222 offspring of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with the offspring of 7,550 mothers in the control group (not infected) delivered during the same period, we observed neurodevelopmental diagnoses to be significantly more common among exposed offspring, particularly those exposed to third-trimester maternal infection,” they write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Speech and language disorders

The study included 7,772 mostly singleton live births across six hospitals in Massachusetts between March and September 2020, including 222 (2.9%) births to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing during pregnancy.

In all, 14 of 222 children born to SARS-CoV-2–infected mothers (6.3%) were diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the first year of life versus 227 of 7,550 unexposed offspring (3%) (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.79; P = .006).

In models adjusted for preterm delivery, as well as race, ethnicity, insurance status, child sex, and maternal age, COVID-exposed offspring were significantly more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first year of life (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03-3.36; P = .04).

The magnitude of the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was greater with third-trimester SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.23-4.44; P = .01).

The majority of these diagnoses reflected developmental disorders of motor function or speech and language.

The researchers noted that the finding of an association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses at 12 months is in line with a “large body of literature” linking maternal viral infection and maternal immune activation with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.

They cautioned, however, that whether a definitive connection exists between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and adverse neurodevelopment in offspring is not yet known, in part because children born to women infected in the first wave of the pandemic haven’t reached their second birthday – a time when neurodevelopment disorders such as autism are typically diagnosed.

There is also the risk for ascertainment bias arising from greater concern for offspring of infected mothers who were ill during pregnancy. These parents may be more inclined to seek evaluation, and clinicians may be more inclined to diagnose or refer for evaluation, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, as reported by this news organization, the study results support those of research released at the European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress; those results also showed an association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and impaired neurodevelopment in 6-week-old infants.
 

Hypothesis generating

In an accompanying commentary, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said the preliminary findings of Dr. Perlis and colleagues are “critically important, yet many questions remain.”

“Essentially all of what we know now about the effects of in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection is from children who were exposed to the early and Alpha variants of SARS-CoV-2, as those are the only children now old enough to undergo rigorous neurodevelopmental assessments,” Dr. Metz pointed out.

Ultimately, Dr. Metz said it’s not surprising that the pandemic and in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection may adversely affect neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children.

Yet, as a retrospective cohort study, the study can only demonstrate associations, not causality.

“This type of work is intended to be hypothesis generating, and that goal has been accomplished as these preliminary findings generate numerous additional research questions to explore,” Dr. Metz wrote.

Among them: Are there genetic predispositions to adverse outcomes? Will we observe differential effects by SARS-CoV-2 variant, by severity of infection, and by trimester of infection? Is it the virus itself or all of the societal changes that occurred during this period, including differences in how those changes were experienced among those with and without SARS-CoV-2?

“Perhaps the most important question is how do we intervene to help mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic on young children,” Dr. Metz noted.

“Prospective studies to validate these findings, tease out some of the nuance, and identify those at highest risk will help health care practitioners appropriately dedicate resources to improve outcomes as we follow the life course of this generation of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic,” she added.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Perlis is an associate editor for JAMA Network Open but was not involved in the editorial review or decision for the study. Dr. Metz reported receiving personal fees and grants from Pfizer and grants from GestVision.

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

Infants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first year of life, new research suggests.

But whether it is exposure to the pandemic or maternal exposure to the virus itself that may harm early childhood neurodevelopment is unclear, caution investigators, led by Roy Perlis, MD, MSc, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In this analysis of 222 offspring of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with the offspring of 7,550 mothers in the control group (not infected) delivered during the same period, we observed neurodevelopmental diagnoses to be significantly more common among exposed offspring, particularly those exposed to third-trimester maternal infection,” they write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Speech and language disorders

The study included 7,772 mostly singleton live births across six hospitals in Massachusetts between March and September 2020, including 222 (2.9%) births to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing during pregnancy.

In all, 14 of 222 children born to SARS-CoV-2–infected mothers (6.3%) were diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the first year of life versus 227 of 7,550 unexposed offspring (3%) (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.79; P = .006).

In models adjusted for preterm delivery, as well as race, ethnicity, insurance status, child sex, and maternal age, COVID-exposed offspring were significantly more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first year of life (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03-3.36; P = .04).

The magnitude of the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was greater with third-trimester SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.23-4.44; P = .01).

The majority of these diagnoses reflected developmental disorders of motor function or speech and language.

The researchers noted that the finding of an association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses at 12 months is in line with a “large body of literature” linking maternal viral infection and maternal immune activation with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.

They cautioned, however, that whether a definitive connection exists between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and adverse neurodevelopment in offspring is not yet known, in part because children born to women infected in the first wave of the pandemic haven’t reached their second birthday – a time when neurodevelopment disorders such as autism are typically diagnosed.

There is also the risk for ascertainment bias arising from greater concern for offspring of infected mothers who were ill during pregnancy. These parents may be more inclined to seek evaluation, and clinicians may be more inclined to diagnose or refer for evaluation, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, as reported by this news organization, the study results support those of research released at the European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress; those results also showed an association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and impaired neurodevelopment in 6-week-old infants.
 

Hypothesis generating

In an accompanying commentary, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said the preliminary findings of Dr. Perlis and colleagues are “critically important, yet many questions remain.”

“Essentially all of what we know now about the effects of in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection is from children who were exposed to the early and Alpha variants of SARS-CoV-2, as those are the only children now old enough to undergo rigorous neurodevelopmental assessments,” Dr. Metz pointed out.

Ultimately, Dr. Metz said it’s not surprising that the pandemic and in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection may adversely affect neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children.

Yet, as a retrospective cohort study, the study can only demonstrate associations, not causality.

“This type of work is intended to be hypothesis generating, and that goal has been accomplished as these preliminary findings generate numerous additional research questions to explore,” Dr. Metz wrote.

Among them: Are there genetic predispositions to adverse outcomes? Will we observe differential effects by SARS-CoV-2 variant, by severity of infection, and by trimester of infection? Is it the virus itself or all of the societal changes that occurred during this period, including differences in how those changes were experienced among those with and without SARS-CoV-2?

“Perhaps the most important question is how do we intervene to help mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic on young children,” Dr. Metz noted.

“Prospective studies to validate these findings, tease out some of the nuance, and identify those at highest risk will help health care practitioners appropriately dedicate resources to improve outcomes as we follow the life course of this generation of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic,” she added.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Perlis is an associate editor for JAMA Network Open but was not involved in the editorial review or decision for the study. Dr. Metz reported receiving personal fees and grants from Pfizer and grants from GestVision.

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