Immunology

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

The asthma medication tezepelumab, added to subcutaneous immunotherapy treatment (SCIT), may provide better, longer-lasting symptom relief than allergy shots alone for patients with allergic rhinitis caused by cat allergens, according to results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

“One year of allergen immunotherapy [AIT] combined with tezepelumab was significantly more effective than SCIT alone in reducing the nasal response to allergen challenge both at the end of treatment and one year after stopping treatment,” lead study author Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues wrote in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“This persistent improvement in clinical response was paralleled by reductions in nasal transcripts for multiple immunologic pathways, including mast cell activation.”

The study was cited in a news release from the National Institutes of Health that said that the approach may work in a similar way with other allergens.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma in people aged 12 years and older. Tezelumab, a monoclonal antibody, works by blocking the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP).

“Cells that cover the surface of organs like the skin and intestines or that line the inside of the nose and lungs rapidly secrete TSLP in response to signals of potential danger,” according to the NIH news release. “In allergic disease, TSLP helps initiate an overreactive immune response to otherwise harmless substances like cat dander, provoking airway inflammation that leads to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.”
 

Testing an enhanced strategy

The double-blind CATNIP trial was conducted by Dr. Corren and colleagues at nine sites in the United States. The trial included patients aged 18-65 years who’d had moderate to severe cat-induced allergic rhinitis for at least 2 years from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers excluded patients with recurrent acute or chronic sinusitis. They excluded patients who had undergone SCIT with cat allergen within the past 10 years or seasonal or perennial allergen sensitivity during nasal challenges. They also excluded persons with a history of persistent asthma.

In the parallel-design study, 121 participants were randomly allocated into four groups: 32 patients were treated with intravenous tezepelumab plus cat SCIT, 31 received the allergy shots alone, 30 received tezepelumab alone, and 28 received placebo alone for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation.

Participants received SCIT (10,000 bioequivalent allergy units per milliliter) or matched placebo via subcutaneous injections weekly in increasing doses for around 12 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance injections (4,000 BAU or maximum tolerated dose) until week 48.

They received tezepelumab (700 mg IV) or matched placebo 1-3 days prior to the SCIT or placebo SCIT injections once every 4 weeks through week 24, then before or on the same day as the SCIT or placebo injections through week 48.
 

Measures of effectiveness

Participants were also given nasal allergy challenges – one spritz of a nasal spray containing cat allergen extract in each nostril at screening, baseline, and weeks 26, 52, 78, and 104. The researchers recorded participants’ total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after being sprayed and hourly for up to 6 hours post challenge. Blood and nasal cell samples were also collected.

The research team performed skin prick tests using serial dilutions of cat extract and an intradermal skin test (IDST) using the concentration of allergen that produced an early response of at least 15 mm at baseline. They measured early-phase responses for the both tests at 15 minutes and late-phase response to the IDST at 6 hours.

They measured serum levels of cat dander–specific IgE, IgG4, and total IgE using fluoroenzyme immunoassay. They measured serum interleukin-5 and IL-13 using high-sensitivity single-molecule digital immunoassay and performed nasal brushing using a 3-mm cytology brush 6 hours after a nasal allergy challenge. They performed whole-genome transcriptional profiling on the extracted RNA.
 

Combination therapy worked better and longer

The combined therapy worked better while being administered. Although the allergy shots alone stopped working after they were discontinued, the combination continued to benefit participants 1 year after that therapy ended.

At week 52, statistically significant reductions in TNSS induced by nasal allergy challenges occurred in patients receiving tezepelumab plus SCIT compared with patients receiving SCIT alone.

At week 104, 1 year after treatment ended, the primary endpoint TNSS was not significantly different in the tezepelumab-plus-SCIT group than in the SCIT-alone group, but TNSS peak 0–1 hour was significantly lower in the combination treatment group than in the SCIT-alone group.

In analysis of gene expression from nasal epithelial samples, participants who had been treated with the combination but not with either therapy by itself showed persistent modulation of the nasal immunologic environment, including diminished mast cell function. This was explained in large part by decreased transcription of the gene TPSAB1 (tryptase). Tryptase protein in nasal fluid was also decreased in the combination group, compared with the SCIT-alone group.

Adverse and serious adverse events, including infections and infestations as well as respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, immune system, and nervous system disorders, did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
 

Four independent experts welcome the results

Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., found the results, especially the 1-year posttreatment response durability, surprising.

“AIT is a very effective treatment that often provides prolonged symptom improvement and is ‘curative’ in many cases,” she said in an interview. “If further studies show that tezepelumab offers long-term results, more patients might opt for combination therapy.

“A significant strength of the study is its evaluation of responses of the combination therapy on cellular output and gene expression,” Dr. Lugar added. “The mechanism by which AIT modulates the allergic response is largely understood. Tezepelumab may augment this modulation to alter the Th2 response upon exposure to the allergens.”
 

Will payors cover the prohibitively costly biologic?

Scott Frank, MD, associate professor in the department of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, called the study well designed and rigorous.

“The practicality of the approach may be limited by the need for intravenous administration of tezepelumab in addition to the traditional allergy shot,” he noted by email, “and the cost of this therapeutic approach is not addressed.”

Christopher Brooks, MD, clinical assistant professor of allergy and immunology in the department of otolaryngology at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, also pointed out the drug’s cost.

“Tezepelumab is currently an expensive biologic, so it remains to be seen whether patients and payors will be willing to pay for this add-on medication when AIT by itself still remains very effective,” he said by email.

“AIT is most effective when given for 5 years, so it also remains to be seen whether the results and conclusions of this study would still hold true if done for the typical 5-year treatment period,” he added.

Stokes Peebles, MD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., called the study “very well designed by a highly respected group of investigators using well-matched study populations.

“Tezepelumab has been shown to work in asthma, and there is no reason to think it would not work in allergic rhinitis,” he said in an interview.

“However, while the results of the combined therapy were statistically significant, their clinical significance was not clear. Patients do not care about statistical significance. They want to know whether a drug will be clinically significant,” he added.

Many people avoid cat allergy symptoms by avoiding cats and, in some cases, by avoiding people who live with cats, he said. Medical therapy, usually involving nasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, helps most people avoid cat allergy symptoms.

“Patients with bad allergies who have not done well with SCIT may consider adding tezepelumab, but it incurs a major cost. If medical therapy doesn’t work, allergy shots are available at roughly $3,000 per year. Adding tezepelumab costs around $40,000 more per year,” he explained. “Does the slight clinical benefit justify the greatly increased cost?”

The authors and uninvolved experts recommend further related research.

The research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. AstraZeneca and Amgen donated the drug used in the study. Dr. Corren reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The asthma medication tezepelumab, added to subcutaneous immunotherapy treatment (SCIT), may provide better, longer-lasting symptom relief than allergy shots alone for patients with allergic rhinitis caused by cat allergens, according to results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

“One year of allergen immunotherapy [AIT] combined with tezepelumab was significantly more effective than SCIT alone in reducing the nasal response to allergen challenge both at the end of treatment and one year after stopping treatment,” lead study author Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues wrote in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“This persistent improvement in clinical response was paralleled by reductions in nasal transcripts for multiple immunologic pathways, including mast cell activation.”

The study was cited in a news release from the National Institutes of Health that said that the approach may work in a similar way with other allergens.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma in people aged 12 years and older. Tezelumab, a monoclonal antibody, works by blocking the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP).

“Cells that cover the surface of organs like the skin and intestines or that line the inside of the nose and lungs rapidly secrete TSLP in response to signals of potential danger,” according to the NIH news release. “In allergic disease, TSLP helps initiate an overreactive immune response to otherwise harmless substances like cat dander, provoking airway inflammation that leads to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.”
 

Testing an enhanced strategy

The double-blind CATNIP trial was conducted by Dr. Corren and colleagues at nine sites in the United States. The trial included patients aged 18-65 years who’d had moderate to severe cat-induced allergic rhinitis for at least 2 years from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers excluded patients with recurrent acute or chronic sinusitis. They excluded patients who had undergone SCIT with cat allergen within the past 10 years or seasonal or perennial allergen sensitivity during nasal challenges. They also excluded persons with a history of persistent asthma.

In the parallel-design study, 121 participants were randomly allocated into four groups: 32 patients were treated with intravenous tezepelumab plus cat SCIT, 31 received the allergy shots alone, 30 received tezepelumab alone, and 28 received placebo alone for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation.

Participants received SCIT (10,000 bioequivalent allergy units per milliliter) or matched placebo via subcutaneous injections weekly in increasing doses for around 12 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance injections (4,000 BAU or maximum tolerated dose) until week 48.

They received tezepelumab (700 mg IV) or matched placebo 1-3 days prior to the SCIT or placebo SCIT injections once every 4 weeks through week 24, then before or on the same day as the SCIT or placebo injections through week 48.
 

Measures of effectiveness

Participants were also given nasal allergy challenges – one spritz of a nasal spray containing cat allergen extract in each nostril at screening, baseline, and weeks 26, 52, 78, and 104. The researchers recorded participants’ total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after being sprayed and hourly for up to 6 hours post challenge. Blood and nasal cell samples were also collected.

The research team performed skin prick tests using serial dilutions of cat extract and an intradermal skin test (IDST) using the concentration of allergen that produced an early response of at least 15 mm at baseline. They measured early-phase responses for the both tests at 15 minutes and late-phase response to the IDST at 6 hours.

They measured serum levels of cat dander–specific IgE, IgG4, and total IgE using fluoroenzyme immunoassay. They measured serum interleukin-5 and IL-13 using high-sensitivity single-molecule digital immunoassay and performed nasal brushing using a 3-mm cytology brush 6 hours after a nasal allergy challenge. They performed whole-genome transcriptional profiling on the extracted RNA.
 

Combination therapy worked better and longer

The combined therapy worked better while being administered. Although the allergy shots alone stopped working after they were discontinued, the combination continued to benefit participants 1 year after that therapy ended.

At week 52, statistically significant reductions in TNSS induced by nasal allergy challenges occurred in patients receiving tezepelumab plus SCIT compared with patients receiving SCIT alone.

At week 104, 1 year after treatment ended, the primary endpoint TNSS was not significantly different in the tezepelumab-plus-SCIT group than in the SCIT-alone group, but TNSS peak 0–1 hour was significantly lower in the combination treatment group than in the SCIT-alone group.

In analysis of gene expression from nasal epithelial samples, participants who had been treated with the combination but not with either therapy by itself showed persistent modulation of the nasal immunologic environment, including diminished mast cell function. This was explained in large part by decreased transcription of the gene TPSAB1 (tryptase). Tryptase protein in nasal fluid was also decreased in the combination group, compared with the SCIT-alone group.

Adverse and serious adverse events, including infections and infestations as well as respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, immune system, and nervous system disorders, did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
 

Four independent experts welcome the results

Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., found the results, especially the 1-year posttreatment response durability, surprising.

“AIT is a very effective treatment that often provides prolonged symptom improvement and is ‘curative’ in many cases,” she said in an interview. “If further studies show that tezepelumab offers long-term results, more patients might opt for combination therapy.

“A significant strength of the study is its evaluation of responses of the combination therapy on cellular output and gene expression,” Dr. Lugar added. “The mechanism by which AIT modulates the allergic response is largely understood. Tezepelumab may augment this modulation to alter the Th2 response upon exposure to the allergens.”
 

Will payors cover the prohibitively costly biologic?

Scott Frank, MD, associate professor in the department of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, called the study well designed and rigorous.

“The practicality of the approach may be limited by the need for intravenous administration of tezepelumab in addition to the traditional allergy shot,” he noted by email, “and the cost of this therapeutic approach is not addressed.”

Christopher Brooks, MD, clinical assistant professor of allergy and immunology in the department of otolaryngology at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, also pointed out the drug’s cost.

“Tezepelumab is currently an expensive biologic, so it remains to be seen whether patients and payors will be willing to pay for this add-on medication when AIT by itself still remains very effective,” he said by email.

“AIT is most effective when given for 5 years, so it also remains to be seen whether the results and conclusions of this study would still hold true if done for the typical 5-year treatment period,” he added.

Stokes Peebles, MD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., called the study “very well designed by a highly respected group of investigators using well-matched study populations.

“Tezepelumab has been shown to work in asthma, and there is no reason to think it would not work in allergic rhinitis,” he said in an interview.

“However, while the results of the combined therapy were statistically significant, their clinical significance was not clear. Patients do not care about statistical significance. They want to know whether a drug will be clinically significant,” he added.

Many people avoid cat allergy symptoms by avoiding cats and, in some cases, by avoiding people who live with cats, he said. Medical therapy, usually involving nasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, helps most people avoid cat allergy symptoms.

“Patients with bad allergies who have not done well with SCIT may consider adding tezepelumab, but it incurs a major cost. If medical therapy doesn’t work, allergy shots are available at roughly $3,000 per year. Adding tezepelumab costs around $40,000 more per year,” he explained. “Does the slight clinical benefit justify the greatly increased cost?”

The authors and uninvolved experts recommend further related research.

The research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. AstraZeneca and Amgen donated the drug used in the study. Dr. Corren reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The asthma medication tezepelumab, added to subcutaneous immunotherapy treatment (SCIT), may provide better, longer-lasting symptom relief than allergy shots alone for patients with allergic rhinitis caused by cat allergens, according to results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

“One year of allergen immunotherapy [AIT] combined with tezepelumab was significantly more effective than SCIT alone in reducing the nasal response to allergen challenge both at the end of treatment and one year after stopping treatment,” lead study author Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues wrote in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“This persistent improvement in clinical response was paralleled by reductions in nasal transcripts for multiple immunologic pathways, including mast cell activation.”

The study was cited in a news release from the National Institutes of Health that said that the approach may work in a similar way with other allergens.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma in people aged 12 years and older. Tezelumab, a monoclonal antibody, works by blocking the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP).

“Cells that cover the surface of organs like the skin and intestines or that line the inside of the nose and lungs rapidly secrete TSLP in response to signals of potential danger,” according to the NIH news release. “In allergic disease, TSLP helps initiate an overreactive immune response to otherwise harmless substances like cat dander, provoking airway inflammation that leads to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.”
 

Testing an enhanced strategy

The double-blind CATNIP trial was conducted by Dr. Corren and colleagues at nine sites in the United States. The trial included patients aged 18-65 years who’d had moderate to severe cat-induced allergic rhinitis for at least 2 years from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers excluded patients with recurrent acute or chronic sinusitis. They excluded patients who had undergone SCIT with cat allergen within the past 10 years or seasonal or perennial allergen sensitivity during nasal challenges. They also excluded persons with a history of persistent asthma.

In the parallel-design study, 121 participants were randomly allocated into four groups: 32 patients were treated with intravenous tezepelumab plus cat SCIT, 31 received the allergy shots alone, 30 received tezepelumab alone, and 28 received placebo alone for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation.

Participants received SCIT (10,000 bioequivalent allergy units per milliliter) or matched placebo via subcutaneous injections weekly in increasing doses for around 12 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance injections (4,000 BAU or maximum tolerated dose) until week 48.

They received tezepelumab (700 mg IV) or matched placebo 1-3 days prior to the SCIT or placebo SCIT injections once every 4 weeks through week 24, then before or on the same day as the SCIT or placebo injections through week 48.
 

Measures of effectiveness

Participants were also given nasal allergy challenges – one spritz of a nasal spray containing cat allergen extract in each nostril at screening, baseline, and weeks 26, 52, 78, and 104. The researchers recorded participants’ total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after being sprayed and hourly for up to 6 hours post challenge. Blood and nasal cell samples were also collected.

The research team performed skin prick tests using serial dilutions of cat extract and an intradermal skin test (IDST) using the concentration of allergen that produced an early response of at least 15 mm at baseline. They measured early-phase responses for the both tests at 15 minutes and late-phase response to the IDST at 6 hours.

They measured serum levels of cat dander–specific IgE, IgG4, and total IgE using fluoroenzyme immunoassay. They measured serum interleukin-5 and IL-13 using high-sensitivity single-molecule digital immunoassay and performed nasal brushing using a 3-mm cytology brush 6 hours after a nasal allergy challenge. They performed whole-genome transcriptional profiling on the extracted RNA.
 

Combination therapy worked better and longer

The combined therapy worked better while being administered. Although the allergy shots alone stopped working after they were discontinued, the combination continued to benefit participants 1 year after that therapy ended.

At week 52, statistically significant reductions in TNSS induced by nasal allergy challenges occurred in patients receiving tezepelumab plus SCIT compared with patients receiving SCIT alone.

At week 104, 1 year after treatment ended, the primary endpoint TNSS was not significantly different in the tezepelumab-plus-SCIT group than in the SCIT-alone group, but TNSS peak 0–1 hour was significantly lower in the combination treatment group than in the SCIT-alone group.

In analysis of gene expression from nasal epithelial samples, participants who had been treated with the combination but not with either therapy by itself showed persistent modulation of the nasal immunologic environment, including diminished mast cell function. This was explained in large part by decreased transcription of the gene TPSAB1 (tryptase). Tryptase protein in nasal fluid was also decreased in the combination group, compared with the SCIT-alone group.

Adverse and serious adverse events, including infections and infestations as well as respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, immune system, and nervous system disorders, did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
 

Four independent experts welcome the results

Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., found the results, especially the 1-year posttreatment response durability, surprising.

“AIT is a very effective treatment that often provides prolonged symptom improvement and is ‘curative’ in many cases,” she said in an interview. “If further studies show that tezepelumab offers long-term results, more patients might opt for combination therapy.

“A significant strength of the study is its evaluation of responses of the combination therapy on cellular output and gene expression,” Dr. Lugar added. “The mechanism by which AIT modulates the allergic response is largely understood. Tezepelumab may augment this modulation to alter the Th2 response upon exposure to the allergens.”
 

Will payors cover the prohibitively costly biologic?

Scott Frank, MD, associate professor in the department of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, called the study well designed and rigorous.

“The practicality of the approach may be limited by the need for intravenous administration of tezepelumab in addition to the traditional allergy shot,” he noted by email, “and the cost of this therapeutic approach is not addressed.”

Christopher Brooks, MD, clinical assistant professor of allergy and immunology in the department of otolaryngology at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, also pointed out the drug’s cost.

“Tezepelumab is currently an expensive biologic, so it remains to be seen whether patients and payors will be willing to pay for this add-on medication when AIT by itself still remains very effective,” he said by email.

“AIT is most effective when given for 5 years, so it also remains to be seen whether the results and conclusions of this study would still hold true if done for the typical 5-year treatment period,” he added.

Stokes Peebles, MD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., called the study “very well designed by a highly respected group of investigators using well-matched study populations.

“Tezepelumab has been shown to work in asthma, and there is no reason to think it would not work in allergic rhinitis,” he said in an interview.

“However, while the results of the combined therapy were statistically significant, their clinical significance was not clear. Patients do not care about statistical significance. They want to know whether a drug will be clinically significant,” he added.

Many people avoid cat allergy symptoms by avoiding cats and, in some cases, by avoiding people who live with cats, he said. Medical therapy, usually involving nasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, helps most people avoid cat allergy symptoms.

“Patients with bad allergies who have not done well with SCIT may consider adding tezepelumab, but it incurs a major cost. If medical therapy doesn’t work, allergy shots are available at roughly $3,000 per year. Adding tezepelumab costs around $40,000 more per year,” he explained. “Does the slight clinical benefit justify the greatly increased cost?”

The authors and uninvolved experts recommend further related research.

The research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. AstraZeneca and Amgen donated the drug used in the study. Dr. Corren reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

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

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

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

Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.

RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.

RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.

“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.

Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.

“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.

Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.

“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.

Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
 

A leading theory

Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?

It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.

“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”

He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.

“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
 

‘A perfect storm’

“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”

RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.

Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”

The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.

He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
 

A phenomenon by any other name

Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.

“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.

“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.

In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”

The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

How likely are coinfections?

With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?

Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.

“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.

“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.

Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.

Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”

There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.

“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
 

Future concerns

The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”

Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.

“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.

“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”

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

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

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

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

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

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

LOUISVILLE, KY. – A majority of infants who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis appropriately received epinephrine, with symptoms typically resolving after a single treatment dose, research findings indicate.

Given that early administration of epinephrine can be potentially lifesaving for infants with anaphylaxis, the study highlighted the real-world successes in increased uptake of treatment in this vulnerable patient population.

Most infants in the study who presented to the ED and received epinephrine were able to be discharged home after just a few hours, with only 1 out of 10 requiring hospitalization.

The study also reported that most symptoms were in the skin/mucosal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular (CV) systems, providing improved characterization of anaphylaxis symptoms in the infant population.

Nearly “all episodes were triggered by food – especially egg, peanut, milk, and cashew,” commented Colleen Shannon, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who presented the research findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Dr. Shannon noted that despite previous research demonstrating age-based differences in the presentation of anaphylaxis, the symptomatology of anaphylaxis in infants has not been robustly characterized. Better characterization of anaphylaxis in infants with allergies may help ensure earlier and more accurate diagnosis and management, she said.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 169 patients between 0 and 24 months of age (mean age, 1.0 years) who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2022.

All patients in the study met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The investigators used the medical records of patients to evaluate for demographics, as well as presenting symptoms and treatment.

More than half (56.2%) of infants in the study were 12 months of age or younger, and 64.5% were male.

Nearly all (96.5%) anaphylaxis episodes presenting to the ED were triggered by food. The most common foods triggering these episodes were egg (26.6%), peanut (25.4%), milk (13.6%), and cashew (10.1%).

Most symptoms involved the skin/mucosal (97.6%) and GI (74.6%) systems, followed by respiratory (56.8%) and CV (34.3%) systems. Isolated tachycardia was recorded in 84.5% of patients with CV-related symptoms.

Epinephrine was administered to 86.4% of infants who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis. Nearly a third (30.1%) of these infants received epinephrine before arriving to the ED, and 9.5% required more than 1 dose.

The researchers also found that 10.1% of patients required hospital admission, but none had symptoms severe enough to require intensive care.

Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization that while characterizing anaphylaxis symptoms is relevant for clinicians, it also remains vitally important “to teach parents of infants how to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis, particularly as they begin to introduce new foods,” to ensure timely treatment.

She added that since most infants in the study improved after a single dose of epinephrine, most infants presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis can therefore be safely discharged home after only a brief period of observation. “That is, age alone should not be a reason for admission,” explained Dr. Hoffmann, who wasn’t involved in the research study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Shannon and Dr. Hoffmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

LOUISVILLE, KY. – A majority of infants who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis appropriately received epinephrine, with symptoms typically resolving after a single treatment dose, research findings indicate.

Given that early administration of epinephrine can be potentially lifesaving for infants with anaphylaxis, the study highlighted the real-world successes in increased uptake of treatment in this vulnerable patient population.

Most infants in the study who presented to the ED and received epinephrine were able to be discharged home after just a few hours, with only 1 out of 10 requiring hospitalization.

The study also reported that most symptoms were in the skin/mucosal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular (CV) systems, providing improved characterization of anaphylaxis symptoms in the infant population.

Nearly “all episodes were triggered by food – especially egg, peanut, milk, and cashew,” commented Colleen Shannon, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who presented the research findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Dr. Shannon noted that despite previous research demonstrating age-based differences in the presentation of anaphylaxis, the symptomatology of anaphylaxis in infants has not been robustly characterized. Better characterization of anaphylaxis in infants with allergies may help ensure earlier and more accurate diagnosis and management, she said.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 169 patients between 0 and 24 months of age (mean age, 1.0 years) who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2022.

All patients in the study met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The investigators used the medical records of patients to evaluate for demographics, as well as presenting symptoms and treatment.

More than half (56.2%) of infants in the study were 12 months of age or younger, and 64.5% were male.

Nearly all (96.5%) anaphylaxis episodes presenting to the ED were triggered by food. The most common foods triggering these episodes were egg (26.6%), peanut (25.4%), milk (13.6%), and cashew (10.1%).

Most symptoms involved the skin/mucosal (97.6%) and GI (74.6%) systems, followed by respiratory (56.8%) and CV (34.3%) systems. Isolated tachycardia was recorded in 84.5% of patients with CV-related symptoms.

Epinephrine was administered to 86.4% of infants who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis. Nearly a third (30.1%) of these infants received epinephrine before arriving to the ED, and 9.5% required more than 1 dose.

The researchers also found that 10.1% of patients required hospital admission, but none had symptoms severe enough to require intensive care.

Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization that while characterizing anaphylaxis symptoms is relevant for clinicians, it also remains vitally important “to teach parents of infants how to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis, particularly as they begin to introduce new foods,” to ensure timely treatment.

She added that since most infants in the study improved after a single dose of epinephrine, most infants presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis can therefore be safely discharged home after only a brief period of observation. “That is, age alone should not be a reason for admission,” explained Dr. Hoffmann, who wasn’t involved in the research study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Shannon and Dr. Hoffmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

LOUISVILLE, KY. – A majority of infants who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis appropriately received epinephrine, with symptoms typically resolving after a single treatment dose, research findings indicate.

Given that early administration of epinephrine can be potentially lifesaving for infants with anaphylaxis, the study highlighted the real-world successes in increased uptake of treatment in this vulnerable patient population.

Most infants in the study who presented to the ED and received epinephrine were able to be discharged home after just a few hours, with only 1 out of 10 requiring hospitalization.

The study also reported that most symptoms were in the skin/mucosal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular (CV) systems, providing improved characterization of anaphylaxis symptoms in the infant population.

Nearly “all episodes were triggered by food – especially egg, peanut, milk, and cashew,” commented Colleen Shannon, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who presented the research findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Dr. Shannon noted that despite previous research demonstrating age-based differences in the presentation of anaphylaxis, the symptomatology of anaphylaxis in infants has not been robustly characterized. Better characterization of anaphylaxis in infants with allergies may help ensure earlier and more accurate diagnosis and management, she said.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 169 patients between 0 and 24 months of age (mean age, 1.0 years) who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2022.

All patients in the study met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The investigators used the medical records of patients to evaluate for demographics, as well as presenting symptoms and treatment.

More than half (56.2%) of infants in the study were 12 months of age or younger, and 64.5% were male.

Nearly all (96.5%) anaphylaxis episodes presenting to the ED were triggered by food. The most common foods triggering these episodes were egg (26.6%), peanut (25.4%), milk (13.6%), and cashew (10.1%).

Most symptoms involved the skin/mucosal (97.6%) and GI (74.6%) systems, followed by respiratory (56.8%) and CV (34.3%) systems. Isolated tachycardia was recorded in 84.5% of patients with CV-related symptoms.

Epinephrine was administered to 86.4% of infants who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis. Nearly a third (30.1%) of these infants received epinephrine before arriving to the ED, and 9.5% required more than 1 dose.

The researchers also found that 10.1% of patients required hospital admission, but none had symptoms severe enough to require intensive care.

Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization that while characterizing anaphylaxis symptoms is relevant for clinicians, it also remains vitally important “to teach parents of infants how to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis, particularly as they begin to introduce new foods,” to ensure timely treatment.

She added that since most infants in the study improved after a single dose of epinephrine, most infants presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis can therefore be safely discharged home after only a brief period of observation. “That is, age alone should not be a reason for admission,” explained Dr. Hoffmann, who wasn’t involved in the research study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Shannon and Dr. Hoffmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine triggers a stronger immune response than a fourth dose of the original vaccine, the company reported on Nov. 4, supporting calls by public health officials for eligible people to get this booster before a potential COVID-19 surge this winter.

The company’s ongoing phase 2/3 study of their Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 bivalent – which targets both the virus’ original strain and the two subvariants – shows that the vaccine offered the strongest protection in people older than 55 years.

One month after receiving a 30-mcg booster with the bivalent vaccine, those older than 55 had four times more neutralizing antibodies against these Omicron subvariants, compared with people who received the original monovalent vaccine as a booster in the study.

Researchers compared the geometric mean titer (GMT) levels of these antibodies in three groups before and 1 month after boosting. The 36 people older than 55 years in the released study findings had an GMT level of 896 with the bivalent booster, a level 13 times higher than before this immunization.

For the 38 adults ages 18-55 in the study, the GMT level increased to 606 at 1 month after the bivalent booster, an increase of almost 10-fold, compared with baseline. In a comparator group of 40 people receiving the original vaccine as a fourth dose, the GMT level was 236, or threefold higher than before their booster shot.

The newly released data is “very encouraging and consistent now with three studies all showing a substantial 3-4 fold increased level of neutralizing antibodies versus BA.5 as compared with the original booster,” said Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News.

Pfizer and BioNTech announced the updated findings in a Nov. 4 press release.

A booster dose of the BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine is authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration for ages 5 years and older. The safety and tolerability profile of the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent booster remains favorable and similar to the original COVID-19 vaccine, the company reported.

Until recently, the BA.5 Omicron variant was the dominant strain in the United States, but is now getting elbowed out by the subvariants BQ.1.1, BQ.1, and BA.4.6, which together make up almost 45% of the circulating virus.
 

Some skepticism

“It is important to note that these data are press-release level, which does not allow a view of the data totality,” Hana El Sahly, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“For example, there may be significant differences between the groups, and the release mentions at least one difference that is of importance: the interval since the last vaccination which often affects the response to subsequent boosting,” she said.

Dr. El Sahly added that the findings are not surprising. “In the short term, a variant-specific vaccine produces a higher level of antibody against the variant in the vaccine than the vaccines based on the ancestral strains.”

More researcher results are warranted. “These data do not indicate that these differences between the two vaccines translate into a meaningful clinical benefit at a population level,” Dr. El Sahly said.
 

An uncertain winter ahead

“As we head into the holiday season, we hope these updated data will encourage people to seek out a COVID-19 bivalent booster as soon as they are eligible in order to maintain high levels of protection against the widely circulating Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages,” Albert Bourla, Pfizer chairman and CEO, stated in the release.

The updated data from the Pfizer/BioNTech study are “all the more reason to get a booster, with added protection also versus BQ.1.1, which will soon become dominant in the U.S.,” Dr. Topol predicted.

It is unclear when the next surge will happen, as COVID-19 does not always follow a seasonal pattern, at least not yet, Dr. El Sahly said. “Regardless, it is reasonable to recommend additional vaccine doses to immunocompromised and frail or older persons. More importantly, influenza vaccination and being up to date on pneumococcal vaccines are highly recommended as soon as feasible, given the early and intense flu season.”

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

The COVID-19 bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine triggers a stronger immune response than a fourth dose of the original vaccine, the company reported on Nov. 4, supporting calls by public health officials for eligible people to get this booster before a potential COVID-19 surge this winter.

The company’s ongoing phase 2/3 study of their Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 bivalent – which targets both the virus’ original strain and the two subvariants – shows that the vaccine offered the strongest protection in people older than 55 years.

One month after receiving a 30-mcg booster with the bivalent vaccine, those older than 55 had four times more neutralizing antibodies against these Omicron subvariants, compared with people who received the original monovalent vaccine as a booster in the study.

Researchers compared the geometric mean titer (GMT) levels of these antibodies in three groups before and 1 month after boosting. The 36 people older than 55 years in the released study findings had an GMT level of 896 with the bivalent booster, a level 13 times higher than before this immunization.

For the 38 adults ages 18-55 in the study, the GMT level increased to 606 at 1 month after the bivalent booster, an increase of almost 10-fold, compared with baseline. In a comparator group of 40 people receiving the original vaccine as a fourth dose, the GMT level was 236, or threefold higher than before their booster shot.

The newly released data is “very encouraging and consistent now with three studies all showing a substantial 3-4 fold increased level of neutralizing antibodies versus BA.5 as compared with the original booster,” said Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News.

Pfizer and BioNTech announced the updated findings in a Nov. 4 press release.

A booster dose of the BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine is authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration for ages 5 years and older. The safety and tolerability profile of the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent booster remains favorable and similar to the original COVID-19 vaccine, the company reported.

Until recently, the BA.5 Omicron variant was the dominant strain in the United States, but is now getting elbowed out by the subvariants BQ.1.1, BQ.1, and BA.4.6, which together make up almost 45% of the circulating virus.
 

Some skepticism

“It is important to note that these data are press-release level, which does not allow a view of the data totality,” Hana El Sahly, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“For example, there may be significant differences between the groups, and the release mentions at least one difference that is of importance: the interval since the last vaccination which often affects the response to subsequent boosting,” she said.

Dr. El Sahly added that the findings are not surprising. “In the short term, a variant-specific vaccine produces a higher level of antibody against the variant in the vaccine than the vaccines based on the ancestral strains.”

More researcher results are warranted. “These data do not indicate that these differences between the two vaccines translate into a meaningful clinical benefit at a population level,” Dr. El Sahly said.
 

An uncertain winter ahead

“As we head into the holiday season, we hope these updated data will encourage people to seek out a COVID-19 bivalent booster as soon as they are eligible in order to maintain high levels of protection against the widely circulating Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages,” Albert Bourla, Pfizer chairman and CEO, stated in the release.

The updated data from the Pfizer/BioNTech study are “all the more reason to get a booster, with added protection also versus BQ.1.1, which will soon become dominant in the U.S.,” Dr. Topol predicted.

It is unclear when the next surge will happen, as COVID-19 does not always follow a seasonal pattern, at least not yet, Dr. El Sahly said. “Regardless, it is reasonable to recommend additional vaccine doses to immunocompromised and frail or older persons. More importantly, influenza vaccination and being up to date on pneumococcal vaccines are highly recommended as soon as feasible, given the early and intense flu season.”

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

The COVID-19 bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine triggers a stronger immune response than a fourth dose of the original vaccine, the company reported on Nov. 4, supporting calls by public health officials for eligible people to get this booster before a potential COVID-19 surge this winter.

The company’s ongoing phase 2/3 study of their Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 bivalent – which targets both the virus’ original strain and the two subvariants – shows that the vaccine offered the strongest protection in people older than 55 years.

One month after receiving a 30-mcg booster with the bivalent vaccine, those older than 55 had four times more neutralizing antibodies against these Omicron subvariants, compared with people who received the original monovalent vaccine as a booster in the study.

Researchers compared the geometric mean titer (GMT) levels of these antibodies in three groups before and 1 month after boosting. The 36 people older than 55 years in the released study findings had an GMT level of 896 with the bivalent booster, a level 13 times higher than before this immunization.

For the 38 adults ages 18-55 in the study, the GMT level increased to 606 at 1 month after the bivalent booster, an increase of almost 10-fold, compared with baseline. In a comparator group of 40 people receiving the original vaccine as a fourth dose, the GMT level was 236, or threefold higher than before their booster shot.

The newly released data is “very encouraging and consistent now with three studies all showing a substantial 3-4 fold increased level of neutralizing antibodies versus BA.5 as compared with the original booster,” said Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News.

Pfizer and BioNTech announced the updated findings in a Nov. 4 press release.

A booster dose of the BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine is authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration for ages 5 years and older. The safety and tolerability profile of the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent booster remains favorable and similar to the original COVID-19 vaccine, the company reported.

Until recently, the BA.5 Omicron variant was the dominant strain in the United States, but is now getting elbowed out by the subvariants BQ.1.1, BQ.1, and BA.4.6, which together make up almost 45% of the circulating virus.
 

Some skepticism

“It is important to note that these data are press-release level, which does not allow a view of the data totality,” Hana El Sahly, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“For example, there may be significant differences between the groups, and the release mentions at least one difference that is of importance: the interval since the last vaccination which often affects the response to subsequent boosting,” she said.

Dr. El Sahly added that the findings are not surprising. “In the short term, a variant-specific vaccine produces a higher level of antibody against the variant in the vaccine than the vaccines based on the ancestral strains.”

More researcher results are warranted. “These data do not indicate that these differences between the two vaccines translate into a meaningful clinical benefit at a population level,” Dr. El Sahly said.
 

An uncertain winter ahead

“As we head into the holiday season, we hope these updated data will encourage people to seek out a COVID-19 bivalent booster as soon as they are eligible in order to maintain high levels of protection against the widely circulating Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages,” Albert Bourla, Pfizer chairman and CEO, stated in the release.

The updated data from the Pfizer/BioNTech study are “all the more reason to get a booster, with added protection also versus BQ.1.1, which will soon become dominant in the U.S.,” Dr. Topol predicted.

It is unclear when the next surge will happen, as COVID-19 does not always follow a seasonal pattern, at least not yet, Dr. El Sahly said. “Regardless, it is reasonable to recommend additional vaccine doses to immunocompromised and frail or older persons. More importantly, influenza vaccination and being up to date on pneumococcal vaccines are highly recommended as soon as feasible, given the early and intense flu season.”

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