Infectious Diseases

More than half of individuals who started HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a large Northern California care management organization discontinued PrEP in a 6.5-year study period, researchers report. African American and Latinx individuals, women, and participants with substance use disorder were more likely to experience gaps in the PrEP care continuum, from initial contact with a provider to adherence over time.

While PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed, research suggests that access to and usage of the medication is lower in the communities that need it most. Even if someone in these groups gets access to PrEP, he or she is less likely to start taking the medication and more likely to discontinue treatment, Carlo Hojilla, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and research fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

By identifying and tracking these at-risk individuals and subgroups, “we can better characterize at what points in the PrEP continuum people are falling off so we can then better develop interventions to address those gaps,” he said. The results of the analysis were published Aug. 26.

The investigators looked at the electronic health records (EHR) from 13,906 adults (18 years or older) linked to PrEP services at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 16, 2012 – when PrEP received regulatory approval in the United States – through March 31, 2019. The total follow-up in the study was 26,210 person-years.

Individuals were included if they had a PrEP referral or a PrEP-coded clinical encounter in the EHR and were KPNC health members for at least 6 months during the study period. The analysis also included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, approximated by participants’ zip codes. Individuals were followed from the initiation of PrEP services to the end of the study period or until HIV diagnosis, discontinuation of KPNC health plan membership, or death.

Nearly all of the study cohort (95.1%) were male, and the median age of participants was 33. Nearly half (48.7%) of the cohort was White, 21.6% were Latinx, 14.8% were Asian, and 7% were African American.

Of all individuals linked to PrEP care in the study, 88.1% received a PrEP prescription. Of those, 98.2% filled their prescription and were assumed to have initiated the medication. More than half (52.2%) of participants discontinued PrEP at least once during the study period, and 60.2% of those participants eventually restarted their regimen.

Participants were most likely to discontinue PrEP within the first 2 years of treatment, the authors found. “With earlier data that we’ve gotten from PrEP trials and studies, we’ve been under the impression that the first few months were the most critical to keeping people engaged in care and maintaining a high degree of adherence,” Dr. Hojilla said. “But I think our findings suggest that it may be more than just a few months.”

Compared with White participants, both African American and Latinx participants had lower rates of PrEP prescriptions, were less likely to initiate PrEP, and more frequently discontinued PrEP. Compared with men, women had lower rates of PrEP prescription and initiation, and were nearly twice as likely (hazard ratio, 1.99) to discontinue their regimen during the study period. Young adults (18-25 years of age), individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and people with substance use disorder also experienced disparities throughout the PrEP continuum of care.

Over the study period, 136 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, with one-third (33.1%) diagnosed during their initial PrEP assessment. Excluding this group, the overall HIV incidence was 0.35 new infections per 100 person-years, with the highest incidence among those who had discontinued and did not reinitiate PrEP (1.28 new infections per 100 person-years.) No individuals who consistently took PrEP were diagnosed with HIV during the study period.

Although the findings are not surprising, the study “corroborates what a lot of us have looked at on the clinic level, which is basically that a lot of people discontinue PrEP who probably need it,” said Amy Nunn, ScD, a professor of behavioral and social sciences at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, R.I. She was not involved with the study. As “one of the largest studies to date” to look at HIV PrEP adherence, the study also gives a better picture of what is going on at a population level, she said.

Because the authors retrospectively looked at EHR data, a limitation they acknowledged, it was not clear what was driving these patients to discontinue care or neglect adherence, Dr. Nunn noted.

Dr. Nunn’s previous research found that unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be one reason people discontinue PrEP, and there are many structural barriers such as medical mistrust and community stigma that can contribute to disrupted care, added Jessica Jaiswal, PhD, MPH, a public health scientist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And since all the study’s participants had health insurance, the findings do not reflect additional struggles of accessing care while uninsured. “If this is what they found among folks who are insured, then it’s very likely that the barriers are more intense or formidable for folks without insurance,” said Dr. Jaiswal, who was not associated with the study.

Dr. Hojilla reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the conduct of the study and salary for clinical work from the San Francisco Department of Public Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Jaiswal and Dr. Nunn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than half of individuals who started HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a large Northern California care management organization discontinued PrEP in a 6.5-year study period, researchers report. African American and Latinx individuals, women, and participants with substance use disorder were more likely to experience gaps in the PrEP care continuum, from initial contact with a provider to adherence over time.

While PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed, research suggests that access to and usage of the medication is lower in the communities that need it most. Even if someone in these groups gets access to PrEP, he or she is less likely to start taking the medication and more likely to discontinue treatment, Carlo Hojilla, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and research fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

By identifying and tracking these at-risk individuals and subgroups, “we can better characterize at what points in the PrEP continuum people are falling off so we can then better develop interventions to address those gaps,” he said. The results of the analysis were published Aug. 26.

The investigators looked at the electronic health records (EHR) from 13,906 adults (18 years or older) linked to PrEP services at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 16, 2012 – when PrEP received regulatory approval in the United States – through March 31, 2019. The total follow-up in the study was 26,210 person-years.

Individuals were included if they had a PrEP referral or a PrEP-coded clinical encounter in the EHR and were KPNC health members for at least 6 months during the study period. The analysis also included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, approximated by participants’ zip codes. Individuals were followed from the initiation of PrEP services to the end of the study period or until HIV diagnosis, discontinuation of KPNC health plan membership, or death.

Nearly all of the study cohort (95.1%) were male, and the median age of participants was 33. Nearly half (48.7%) of the cohort was White, 21.6% were Latinx, 14.8% were Asian, and 7% were African American.

Of all individuals linked to PrEP care in the study, 88.1% received a PrEP prescription. Of those, 98.2% filled their prescription and were assumed to have initiated the medication. More than half (52.2%) of participants discontinued PrEP at least once during the study period, and 60.2% of those participants eventually restarted their regimen.

Participants were most likely to discontinue PrEP within the first 2 years of treatment, the authors found. “With earlier data that we’ve gotten from PrEP trials and studies, we’ve been under the impression that the first few months were the most critical to keeping people engaged in care and maintaining a high degree of adherence,” Dr. Hojilla said. “But I think our findings suggest that it may be more than just a few months.”

Compared with White participants, both African American and Latinx participants had lower rates of PrEP prescriptions, were less likely to initiate PrEP, and more frequently discontinued PrEP. Compared with men, women had lower rates of PrEP prescription and initiation, and were nearly twice as likely (hazard ratio, 1.99) to discontinue their regimen during the study period. Young adults (18-25 years of age), individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and people with substance use disorder also experienced disparities throughout the PrEP continuum of care.

Over the study period, 136 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, with one-third (33.1%) diagnosed during their initial PrEP assessment. Excluding this group, the overall HIV incidence was 0.35 new infections per 100 person-years, with the highest incidence among those who had discontinued and did not reinitiate PrEP (1.28 new infections per 100 person-years.) No individuals who consistently took PrEP were diagnosed with HIV during the study period.

Although the findings are not surprising, the study “corroborates what a lot of us have looked at on the clinic level, which is basically that a lot of people discontinue PrEP who probably need it,” said Amy Nunn, ScD, a professor of behavioral and social sciences at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, R.I. She was not involved with the study. As “one of the largest studies to date” to look at HIV PrEP adherence, the study also gives a better picture of what is going on at a population level, she said.

Because the authors retrospectively looked at EHR data, a limitation they acknowledged, it was not clear what was driving these patients to discontinue care or neglect adherence, Dr. Nunn noted.

Dr. Nunn’s previous research found that unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be one reason people discontinue PrEP, and there are many structural barriers such as medical mistrust and community stigma that can contribute to disrupted care, added Jessica Jaiswal, PhD, MPH, a public health scientist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And since all the study’s participants had health insurance, the findings do not reflect additional struggles of accessing care while uninsured. “If this is what they found among folks who are insured, then it’s very likely that the barriers are more intense or formidable for folks without insurance,” said Dr. Jaiswal, who was not associated with the study.

Dr. Hojilla reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the conduct of the study and salary for clinical work from the San Francisco Department of Public Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Jaiswal and Dr. Nunn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than half of individuals who started HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a large Northern California care management organization discontinued PrEP in a 6.5-year study period, researchers report. African American and Latinx individuals, women, and participants with substance use disorder were more likely to experience gaps in the PrEP care continuum, from initial contact with a provider to adherence over time.

While PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed, research suggests that access to and usage of the medication is lower in the communities that need it most. Even if someone in these groups gets access to PrEP, he or she is less likely to start taking the medication and more likely to discontinue treatment, Carlo Hojilla, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and research fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

By identifying and tracking these at-risk individuals and subgroups, “we can better characterize at what points in the PrEP continuum people are falling off so we can then better develop interventions to address those gaps,” he said. The results of the analysis were published Aug. 26.

The investigators looked at the electronic health records (EHR) from 13,906 adults (18 years or older) linked to PrEP services at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 16, 2012 – when PrEP received regulatory approval in the United States – through March 31, 2019. The total follow-up in the study was 26,210 person-years.

Individuals were included if they had a PrEP referral or a PrEP-coded clinical encounter in the EHR and were KPNC health members for at least 6 months during the study period. The analysis also included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, approximated by participants’ zip codes. Individuals were followed from the initiation of PrEP services to the end of the study period or until HIV diagnosis, discontinuation of KPNC health plan membership, or death.

Nearly all of the study cohort (95.1%) were male, and the median age of participants was 33. Nearly half (48.7%) of the cohort was White, 21.6% were Latinx, 14.8% were Asian, and 7% were African American.

Of all individuals linked to PrEP care in the study, 88.1% received a PrEP prescription. Of those, 98.2% filled their prescription and were assumed to have initiated the medication. More than half (52.2%) of participants discontinued PrEP at least once during the study period, and 60.2% of those participants eventually restarted their regimen.

Participants were most likely to discontinue PrEP within the first 2 years of treatment, the authors found. “With earlier data that we’ve gotten from PrEP trials and studies, we’ve been under the impression that the first few months were the most critical to keeping people engaged in care and maintaining a high degree of adherence,” Dr. Hojilla said. “But I think our findings suggest that it may be more than just a few months.”

Compared with White participants, both African American and Latinx participants had lower rates of PrEP prescriptions, were less likely to initiate PrEP, and more frequently discontinued PrEP. Compared with men, women had lower rates of PrEP prescription and initiation, and were nearly twice as likely (hazard ratio, 1.99) to discontinue their regimen during the study period. Young adults (18-25 years of age), individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and people with substance use disorder also experienced disparities throughout the PrEP continuum of care.

Over the study period, 136 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, with one-third (33.1%) diagnosed during their initial PrEP assessment. Excluding this group, the overall HIV incidence was 0.35 new infections per 100 person-years, with the highest incidence among those who had discontinued and did not reinitiate PrEP (1.28 new infections per 100 person-years.) No individuals who consistently took PrEP were diagnosed with HIV during the study period.

Although the findings are not surprising, the study “corroborates what a lot of us have looked at on the clinic level, which is basically that a lot of people discontinue PrEP who probably need it,” said Amy Nunn, ScD, a professor of behavioral and social sciences at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, R.I. She was not involved with the study. As “one of the largest studies to date” to look at HIV PrEP adherence, the study also gives a better picture of what is going on at a population level, she said.

Because the authors retrospectively looked at EHR data, a limitation they acknowledged, it was not clear what was driving these patients to discontinue care or neglect adherence, Dr. Nunn noted.

Dr. Nunn’s previous research found that unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be one reason people discontinue PrEP, and there are many structural barriers such as medical mistrust and community stigma that can contribute to disrupted care, added Jessica Jaiswal, PhD, MPH, a public health scientist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And since all the study’s participants had health insurance, the findings do not reflect additional struggles of accessing care while uninsured. “If this is what they found among folks who are insured, then it’s very likely that the barriers are more intense or formidable for folks without insurance,” said Dr. Jaiswal, who was not associated with the study.

Dr. Hojilla reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the conduct of the study and salary for clinical work from the San Francisco Department of Public Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Jaiswal and Dr. Nunn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A short time to positivity (TTP), the period from incubation to blood culture positivity, may help predict mortality rates for patients with Enterococcus faecalis and vancomycin-sensitive E faecium (VSEfm) bloodstream infections (BSIs), but it is not an independent predictor of risk for death from bloodstream infections caused by enterococci, new research indicates.

Katharina Michelson, of the Institute of Microbiology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and colleagues conducted a single-site study at Jena University Hospital that included 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs to assess the value of TTP as a prognostic or diagnostic tool.

Death in the hospital was the primary endpoint considered in the study, which was conducted from January 2014 through December 2016. The shortest TTP of blood cultures was compared among groups.

Findings were published online in April in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Among the 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs, 22.1% of cases were caused by E faecalis, 55.3% were caused by VSEfm, and 22.5% were caused by vancomycin-resistant E faecium (VREfm).

Average TTP of Enterococcus BSI (E-BSI) was 11.6 hours. The researchers found no significant association between risk for death and time to positivity with bloodstream infections with E faecalis, VSEfm, or VREfm, or its cutoffs.

The mortality rate of patients with bloodstream infections with E faecalis was 16.7%; for VSEfm, 26.7%; and for vancomycin-resistant E faecium, 38.2%. Cutoffs showed a significantly higher death rate when TTP was longer but were not risk factors in survival analysis.

The authors explain that “in literature, TTP has not always been proven to be a reliable parameter.”

Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, who is a pharmacy specialist for infectious diseases at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the main message from the article is that the TTP of E faecalis is quite different from that of E faecium and that “that’s in line with what we know about generally with how these organisms come about in patients.”

“This paper reinforces the differences that are sometimes underappreciated between these organisms because they are both enterococci,” he said.

The authors say appropriate antimicrobial therapy can lead to misinterpretation of TTP, so only patients who received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy on the day of positive blood culture were included in the study.

However, Dr. Aitken said that methodology doesn’t account for “immortal time bias.”

“They didn’t account for the fact that patients who tend to get active antibiotics are the ones who live longer. So unless you account for it, you’re not necessarily going to find that patients who get active antibiotics have improved survival,” he said.

The authors point out that finding new methods for quickly identifying patients with E-BSI is a high priority.

The mortality rates of E-BSI vary between 20% for E faecalis and 50% for E faecium.

Resistance to vancomycin is common in E faecium infections and is associated with high mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs. Vancomycin-resistant E faecium is part of a group of bacteria that is associated with multidrug resistance and nosocomial infections.

Dr. Aitken said that rather than TTP, “the best risk predictors are going to be in the microbiome studies we’re seeing. If there is a future for figuring out who’s going to get significant E faecium infections, at least, it’s going to be in the microbiome.”

Limitations of the study include its small size; the possibility of missing data, owing to the fact that the study was retrospective; potential delays to incubation; and the possibility of contamination of blood cultures.

The authors and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A short time to positivity (TTP), the period from incubation to blood culture positivity, may help predict mortality rates for patients with Enterococcus faecalis and vancomycin-sensitive E faecium (VSEfm) bloodstream infections (BSIs), but it is not an independent predictor of risk for death from bloodstream infections caused by enterococci, new research indicates.

Katharina Michelson, of the Institute of Microbiology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and colleagues conducted a single-site study at Jena University Hospital that included 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs to assess the value of TTP as a prognostic or diagnostic tool.

Death in the hospital was the primary endpoint considered in the study, which was conducted from January 2014 through December 2016. The shortest TTP of blood cultures was compared among groups.

Findings were published online in April in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Among the 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs, 22.1% of cases were caused by E faecalis, 55.3% were caused by VSEfm, and 22.5% were caused by vancomycin-resistant E faecium (VREfm).

Average TTP of Enterococcus BSI (E-BSI) was 11.6 hours. The researchers found no significant association between risk for death and time to positivity with bloodstream infections with E faecalis, VSEfm, or VREfm, or its cutoffs.

The mortality rate of patients with bloodstream infections with E faecalis was 16.7%; for VSEfm, 26.7%; and for vancomycin-resistant E faecium, 38.2%. Cutoffs showed a significantly higher death rate when TTP was longer but were not risk factors in survival analysis.

The authors explain that “in literature, TTP has not always been proven to be a reliable parameter.”

Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, who is a pharmacy specialist for infectious diseases at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the main message from the article is that the TTP of E faecalis is quite different from that of E faecium and that “that’s in line with what we know about generally with how these organisms come about in patients.”

“This paper reinforces the differences that are sometimes underappreciated between these organisms because they are both enterococci,” he said.

The authors say appropriate antimicrobial therapy can lead to misinterpretation of TTP, so only patients who received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy on the day of positive blood culture were included in the study.

However, Dr. Aitken said that methodology doesn’t account for “immortal time bias.”

“They didn’t account for the fact that patients who tend to get active antibiotics are the ones who live longer. So unless you account for it, you’re not necessarily going to find that patients who get active antibiotics have improved survival,” he said.

The authors point out that finding new methods for quickly identifying patients with E-BSI is a high priority.

The mortality rates of E-BSI vary between 20% for E faecalis and 50% for E faecium.

Resistance to vancomycin is common in E faecium infections and is associated with high mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs. Vancomycin-resistant E faecium is part of a group of bacteria that is associated with multidrug resistance and nosocomial infections.

Dr. Aitken said that rather than TTP, “the best risk predictors are going to be in the microbiome studies we’re seeing. If there is a future for figuring out who’s going to get significant E faecium infections, at least, it’s going to be in the microbiome.”

Limitations of the study include its small size; the possibility of missing data, owing to the fact that the study was retrospective; potential delays to incubation; and the possibility of contamination of blood cultures.

The authors and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A short time to positivity (TTP), the period from incubation to blood culture positivity, may help predict mortality rates for patients with Enterococcus faecalis and vancomycin-sensitive E faecium (VSEfm) bloodstream infections (BSIs), but it is not an independent predictor of risk for death from bloodstream infections caused by enterococci, new research indicates.

Katharina Michelson, of the Institute of Microbiology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and colleagues conducted a single-site study at Jena University Hospital that included 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs to assess the value of TTP as a prognostic or diagnostic tool.

Death in the hospital was the primary endpoint considered in the study, which was conducted from January 2014 through December 2016. The shortest TTP of blood cultures was compared among groups.

Findings were published online in April in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Among the 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs, 22.1% of cases were caused by E faecalis, 55.3% were caused by VSEfm, and 22.5% were caused by vancomycin-resistant E faecium (VREfm).

Average TTP of Enterococcus BSI (E-BSI) was 11.6 hours. The researchers found no significant association between risk for death and time to positivity with bloodstream infections with E faecalis, VSEfm, or VREfm, or its cutoffs.

The mortality rate of patients with bloodstream infections with E faecalis was 16.7%; for VSEfm, 26.7%; and for vancomycin-resistant E faecium, 38.2%. Cutoffs showed a significantly higher death rate when TTP was longer but were not risk factors in survival analysis.

The authors explain that “in literature, TTP has not always been proven to be a reliable parameter.”

Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, who is a pharmacy specialist for infectious diseases at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the main message from the article is that the TTP of E faecalis is quite different from that of E faecium and that “that’s in line with what we know about generally with how these organisms come about in patients.”

“This paper reinforces the differences that are sometimes underappreciated between these organisms because they are both enterococci,” he said.

The authors say appropriate antimicrobial therapy can lead to misinterpretation of TTP, so only patients who received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy on the day of positive blood culture were included in the study.

However, Dr. Aitken said that methodology doesn’t account for “immortal time bias.”

“They didn’t account for the fact that patients who tend to get active antibiotics are the ones who live longer. So unless you account for it, you’re not necessarily going to find that patients who get active antibiotics have improved survival,” he said.

The authors point out that finding new methods for quickly identifying patients with E-BSI is a high priority.

The mortality rates of E-BSI vary between 20% for E faecalis and 50% for E faecium.

Resistance to vancomycin is common in E faecium infections and is associated with high mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs. Vancomycin-resistant E faecium is part of a group of bacteria that is associated with multidrug resistance and nosocomial infections.

Dr. Aitken said that rather than TTP, “the best risk predictors are going to be in the microbiome studies we’re seeing. If there is a future for figuring out who’s going to get significant E faecium infections, at least, it’s going to be in the microbiome.”

Limitations of the study include its small size; the possibility of missing data, owing to the fact that the study was retrospective; potential delays to incubation; and the possibility of contamination of blood cultures.

The authors and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

[email protected]

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

[email protected]

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

[email protected]

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: In the United States, CAP was responsible for nearly 50,000 deaths in 2017. Prompt and accurate diagnosis promotes early treatment and avoids unnecessary antibiotic treatment for nonpneumonia lower respiratory tract infection patients. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms, as well as available imaging. Inflammatory markers such as CRP, white blood cell count, and procalcitonin are readily available in the ED and outpatient settings.

The study had a some of limitations. The blinding of the person performing the index test to the reference standard and vice versa was not clear. Further, it was unclear if the person interpreting the reference standard was blinded to the index test in five studies and absent in one. Other limitations were inconsistent reporting of abnormal post hoc cutoffs and only two biomarkers being reported in a single study.

Combining a biomarker with signs and symptoms has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in the outpatient setting further. CRP was found to be most accurate regardless of the cutoff used; however, further studies without threshold effect will prove beneficial.

Bottom line: CRP is a more accurate and useful biomarker for outpatient CAP diagnosis than procalcitonin or leukocytosis.

Citation: Ebell MH et al. Accuracy of biomarkers for the diagnosis of adult community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(3):195-206.

Dr. Castellanos is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: In the United States, CAP was responsible for nearly 50,000 deaths in 2017. Prompt and accurate diagnosis promotes early treatment and avoids unnecessary antibiotic treatment for nonpneumonia lower respiratory tract infection patients. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms, as well as available imaging. Inflammatory markers such as CRP, white blood cell count, and procalcitonin are readily available in the ED and outpatient settings.

The study had a some of limitations. The blinding of the person performing the index test to the reference standard and vice versa was not clear. Further, it was unclear if the person interpreting the reference standard was blinded to the index test in five studies and absent in one. Other limitations were inconsistent reporting of abnormal post hoc cutoffs and only two biomarkers being reported in a single study.

Combining a biomarker with signs and symptoms has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in the outpatient setting further. CRP was found to be most accurate regardless of the cutoff used; however, further studies without threshold effect will prove beneficial.

Bottom line: CRP is a more accurate and useful biomarker for outpatient CAP diagnosis than procalcitonin or leukocytosis.

Citation: Ebell MH et al. Accuracy of biomarkers for the diagnosis of adult community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(3):195-206.

Dr. Castellanos is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: In the United States, CAP was responsible for nearly 50,000 deaths in 2017. Prompt and accurate diagnosis promotes early treatment and avoids unnecessary antibiotic treatment for nonpneumonia lower respiratory tract infection patients. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms, as well as available imaging. Inflammatory markers such as CRP, white blood cell count, and procalcitonin are readily available in the ED and outpatient settings.

The study had a some of limitations. The blinding of the person performing the index test to the reference standard and vice versa was not clear. Further, it was unclear if the person interpreting the reference standard was blinded to the index test in five studies and absent in one. Other limitations were inconsistent reporting of abnormal post hoc cutoffs and only two biomarkers being reported in a single study.

Combining a biomarker with signs and symptoms has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in the outpatient setting further. CRP was found to be most accurate regardless of the cutoff used; however, further studies without threshold effect will prove beneficial.

Bottom line: CRP is a more accurate and useful biomarker for outpatient CAP diagnosis than procalcitonin or leukocytosis.

Citation: Ebell MH et al. Accuracy of biomarkers for the diagnosis of adult community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(3):195-206.

Dr. Castellanos is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

With first-time COVID-19 immunizations continuing and the plan to offer booster vaccines to most Americans starting next month, what are the considerations for getting COVID-19 and flu shots at the same time?

This news organization asked Andrew T. Pavia, MD, for his advice. He is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Q: With COVID-19 cases surging, is it a good idea to get the flu shot early this season?

Dr. Pavia: I don’t think there is a rush to do it in August, but it is a good idea to get a flu shot this season. The consequences of getting the flu while COVID is circulating are serious.

Q: What are the implications?

There are some we know and some we don’t know. If you develop flu-like symptoms, you’re going to have to get tested. You’re going to have to stay home quite a bit longer if you get a definitive (positive COVID-19) test than you would simply with flu symptoms. Also, you’re probably going to miss work when your workplace is very stressed or your children are stressed by having COVID circulating in schools.

The part we know less about are the implications of getting the flu and COVID together. There is some reason to believe if you get them together, the illness will be more severe. We are seeing that with RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) and parainfluenza and COVID coinfections in children. They appear to be quite severe.

But for flu, we just don’t have the data yet. That’s because there really was no cocirculation of COVID and influenza with the exception of parts of China for a brief part of February and March.
 

Q: Will the planned administration of booster COVID-19 shots this fall affect the number of people who get the flu vaccine or how it’s distributed?

It creates a lot of logistical challenges, particularly for hospitals and other places that need to vaccinate a large number of their employees for flu and that will need to give COVID boosters at about the same time period. It also creates logistical challenges for doctors’ offices.

But we don’t know of any reason why you can’t give the two shots together.
 

Q: Is it possible flu season will be more severe because we isolated and wore masks, etc., last winter? Any science behind that?

The more you study flu, the less you can predict, and I’ve been studying flu for a long time. There are reasons that might suggest a severe flu season – there has been limited immunity, and some people are not wearing masks effectively and they are gathering again. Those are things we believe protected us from influenza last season.

But we have not seen flu emerge yet. Normally we look to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa during their winter – which is our summer – to get some idea of what is over the horizon for the Northern Hemisphere. Flu activity in Australia has been very modest this year.

That might mean flu may not show up for a while, but I would be loathe to make a prediction.
 

Q: What are the chances we’ll see a flu outbreak like we’re seeing with RSV, which is normally a winter illness?

The fact that we had a summer RSV surge just gives you an idea of how the normal epidemiology of viral infections has been disrupted. It means anything could happen with influenza. It could show up late summer or fall or wait until next spring.

We really don’t understand how those interactions work. When a new flu strain emerges, it often ignores the traditional behavior and shows up in the spring or fall. It happened in the 2009 pandemic, it happened in 1918.

The one thing I would safely predict about the next flu wave is that it will surprise us.
 

Q: Are you hopeful that combination vaccines in development from a number of companies, such as Moderna, Novavax, and Vivaldi, will be effective?

It is beginning to look like COVID will be with us for the foreseeable future – maybe as a seasonal virus or maybe as an ongoing pandemic. We are going to need to protect (ourselves) simultaneously against the flu and COVID. A single shot is a great way to do that – nobody wants two needles; nobody wants two trips to get vaccinated.

An effective combination vaccine would be a really great tool.

We have to wait to see what the science shows us, because they are quite different viruses. We won’t know if a combination vaccine works well and has acceptable side effects until we do those studies.
 

Q. Do you know at this point whether the side effects from two vaccines would be additive? Is there any way to predict that?

There is no way to predict. There are so many things that go into whether someone has side effects that we don’t understand. With fairly reactogenic vaccines like the mRNA vaccines, lots of people have no side effects whatsoever and others are really uncomfortable for 24 hours.

Flu is generally a better tolerated vaccine. There are still people who get muscle aches and very sore arms. I don’t think we can predict if getting two will be additive or just the same as getting one vaccine.
 

Q: Other than convenience and the benefit for people who are needle-phobic, are there any other advantages of combining them into one shot?

The logistics alone are enough to justify having one effective product if we can make one. It should reduce the overall cost of administration and reduce time off from work.

The combination vaccines given by pediatricians have been very successful. They reduce the number of needles for kids and make it much easier for parents and the pediatricians administering them. The same principle should apply to adults, who sometimes are less brave about needles than kids are.

Historically, combined vaccines in general have worked as well as vaccines given alone, but there have been exceptions. We just have to see what the products look like.
 

Q: For now, the flu vaccine and COVID-19 vaccine are single products. If you get them separately, is it better to put some time between the two?

We don’t know. There are studies that probably won’t be out in time to decide in September. They are looking at whether you get an equivalent immune response if you give them together or apart.

For now, I would say the advantage of getting them together is if you do get side effects, you’ll only get them once – one day to suffer through them. Also, it’s one trip to the doctor.

The potential advantage of separating them is that is how we developed and tested the vaccines. If you do react to them, side effects could be milder, but it will be on two separate days.

I would recommend doing whatever works so that you get both vaccines in a timely manner.

I’m going to get my flu shot as soon as it’s available. If I’m due for a COVID booster at that time, I would probably do them together.
 

Q: Do you foresee a point in the future when the predominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 will be one of the components of a flu vaccine, like we did in the past with H1N1, etc?

It really remains to be seen, but it is very conceivable it could happen. The same companies that developed COVID-19 vaccines are working on flu vaccines.

Q: Any other advice for people concerned about getting immunized against both COVID-19 and influenza in the coming months?

There is no side effect of the vaccine that begins to approach the risk you face from either disease. It’s really one of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to get vaccinated.

In the case of flu, the vaccine is only modestly effective, but it still saves tens of thousands of lives each year. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a much better vaccine and a deadlier disease.

Dr. Pavia consulted for GlaxoSmithKline on influenza testing.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is setting up a new hub to watch for early warning signs of future infectious outbreaks, the agency announced on Aug. 18.

Epidemiologists learn about emerging outbreaks by tracking information, and the quality of their analysis depends on their access to high-quality data. Gaps in existing systems became obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic as experts were challenged by the crisis.

The new Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics will, in part, work like a meteorological office that tracks weather-related changes, only the center will track possible flareups in infectious disease.

The day after he took office, President Joe Biden pledged to modernize the country’s system for public health data. First funding for the initiative will come from the American Rescue Plan.

“We are excited to have the expertise and ability to model and forecast public health concerns and share information in real-time to activate governmental, private sector, and public actions in anticipation of threats both domestically and abroad,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a statement.
 

Devastating toll of COVID-19

Many world leaders are now responding to the destruction of the health crisis and are investing in new infrastructure. A July report from a G-20 panel calls for $75 billion in international financing for pandemic prevention and preparedness –twice as much as current spending levels.

Testifying in a congressional hearing, epidemiologist Caitlin Rivers, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, voiced the importance of never being caught unprepared again.

“We were unprepared to manage the emergence and swift global spread of the novel coronavirus, and we were late to recognize when it reached our shores. Those delays set us on a worse trajectory than we might have otherwise faced,” she said.

Dr. Rivers will join the new center’s leadership team as associate director working alongside Marc Lipsitch, PhD, director for science.

“The new center will meet a longstanding need for a national focal point to analyze data and forecast the trajectory of pandemics with the express goal of informing and improving decisions with the best available evidence,” Dr. Lipsitch said in the CDC’s news release announcing the new center.

Experts will map what data sources are needed to assist disease modelers and public health emergency responders tracking emerging problems that they can share with decision-makers. They will expand tracking capability and data sharing using open-source software and application programming with existing and new data streams from the public health ecosystem and elsewhere.

Dylan George, PhD, who will be the center’s director for operations, said in the CDC news release that the center will provide critical information to communities so they can respond.

“Pandemics threaten our families and communities at speed and scale – our response needs to move at speed and scale, too,” he said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is setting up a new hub to watch for early warning signs of future infectious outbreaks, the agency announced on Aug. 18.

Epidemiologists learn about emerging outbreaks by tracking information, and the quality of their analysis depends on their access to high-quality data. Gaps in existing systems became obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic as experts were challenged by the crisis.

The new Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics will, in part, work like a meteorological office that tracks weather-related changes, only the center will track possible flareups in infectious disease.

The day after he took office, President Joe Biden pledged to modernize the country’s system for public health data. First funding for the initiative will come from the American Rescue Plan.

“We are excited to have the expertise and ability to model and forecast public health concerns and share information in real-time to activate governmental, private sector, and public actions in anticipation of threats both domestically and abroad,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a statement.
 

Devastating toll of COVID-19

Many world leaders are now responding to the destruction of the health crisis and are investing in new infrastructure. A July report from a G-20 panel calls for $75 billion in international financing for pandemic prevention and preparedness –twice as much as current spending levels.

Testifying in a congressional hearing, epidemiologist Caitlin Rivers, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, voiced the importance of never being caught unprepared again.

“We were unprepared to manage the emergence and swift global spread of the novel coronavirus, and we were late to recognize when it reached our shores. Those delays set us on a worse trajectory than we might have otherwise faced,” she said.

Dr. Rivers will join the new center’s leadership team as associate director working alongside Marc Lipsitch, PhD, director for science.

“The new center will meet a longstanding need for a national focal point to analyze data and forecast the trajectory of pandemics with the express goal of informing and improving decisions with the best available evidence,” Dr. Lipsitch said in the CDC’s news release announcing the new center.

Experts will map what data sources are needed to assist disease modelers and public health emergency responders tracking emerging problems that they can share with decision-makers. They will expand tracking capability and data sharing using open-source software and application programming with existing and new data streams from the public health ecosystem and elsewhere.

Dylan George, PhD, who will be the center’s director for operations, said in the CDC news release that the center will provide critical information to communities so they can respond.

“Pandemics threaten our families and communities at speed and scale – our response needs to move at speed and scale, too,” he said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is setting up a new hub to watch for early warning signs of future infectious outbreaks, the agency announced on Aug. 18.

Epidemiologists learn about emerging outbreaks by tracking information, and the quality of their analysis depends on their access to high-quality data. Gaps in existing systems became obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic as experts were challenged by the crisis.

The new Center for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics will, in part, work like a meteorological office that tracks weather-related changes, only the center will track possible flareups in infectious disease.

The day after he took office, President Joe Biden pledged to modernize the country’s system for public health data. First funding for the initiative will come from the American Rescue Plan.

“We are excited to have the expertise and ability to model and forecast public health concerns and share information in real-time to activate governmental, private sector, and public actions in anticipation of threats both domestically and abroad,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said in a statement.
 

Devastating toll of COVID-19

Many world leaders are now responding to the destruction of the health crisis and are investing in new infrastructure. A July report from a G-20 panel calls for $75 billion in international financing for pandemic prevention and preparedness –twice as much as current spending levels.

Testifying in a congressional hearing, epidemiologist Caitlin Rivers, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, voiced the importance of never being caught unprepared again.

“We were unprepared to manage the emergence and swift global spread of the novel coronavirus, and we were late to recognize when it reached our shores. Those delays set us on a worse trajectory than we might have otherwise faced,” she said.

Dr. Rivers will join the new center’s leadership team as associate director working alongside Marc Lipsitch, PhD, director for science.

“The new center will meet a longstanding need for a national focal point to analyze data and forecast the trajectory of pandemics with the express goal of informing and improving decisions with the best available evidence,” Dr. Lipsitch said in the CDC’s news release announcing the new center.

Experts will map what data sources are needed to assist disease modelers and public health emergency responders tracking emerging problems that they can share with decision-makers. They will expand tracking capability and data sharing using open-source software and application programming with existing and new data streams from the public health ecosystem and elsewhere.

Dylan George, PhD, who will be the center’s director for operations, said in the CDC news release that the center will provide critical information to communities so they can respond.

“Pandemics threaten our families and communities at speed and scale – our response needs to move at speed and scale, too,” he said.

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

To the Editor:

Broader availability and utilization of novel biologic treatments has heralded the emergence of unusual infections, including skin and soft tissue infections. These unusual infections may not be seen in clinical trials due to their overall rare incidence. In modern society, exposure to unusual pathogens can occur in locations far from their natural habitat.¹ Tissue culture remains the gold standard, as histopathology and smears may not identify the organisms. Tissue culture of these less-common pathogens is challenging and may require multiple samples and specialized laboratory evaluations.² In some cases, a skin biopsy with histopathologic examination is an efficient means to confirm or exclude a dermatologic manifestation of an inflammatory disease. This information can quickly change the course of treatment, especially for those on immunosuppressive medications.³ We report a case of unusual cutaneous infection with Chaetomium globosum in a patient concomitantly treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific integrin inhibitor, alongside traditional immunosuppressive therapy.

A 33-year-old woman with Crohn disease on vedolizumab and mercaptopurine was referred to the dermatology clinic with firm, tender, erythematous lesions on the legs of 1 month’s duration (Figure, A). She had a history of inflammatory bowel disease with perianal fistula, sacroiliitis, uveitis, guttate psoriasis, and erythema nodosum. She denied recent medication changes, foreign travel, swimming in freshwater or a hot tub, chills, fever, malaise, night sweats, and weight loss. Physical examination revealed several tender, indurated, erythematous plaques across the legs, ranging in size from 4 to 12 cm. The plaques had central hyperpigmentation, atrophy, and scant scale without ulceration, drainage, or pustules. The largest plaque demonstrated a well-defined area of central fluctuance. Prednisone (60 mg) with taper was initiated for presumed recurrence of erythema nodosum with close follow-up.

This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion for unusual infections in the setting of biologic therapy. An infectious etiology of a cutaneous eruption in an immunosuppressed patient should always be included in the differential diagnosis and actively pursued early on; tissue culture may shorten the treatment course and decrease severity of the disease. Although a direct link between the mechanism of action of vedolizumab and cutaneous infection is not clear, given the rare incidence of this infection, a report of such a case is important to the practicing clinician.

To the Editor:

Broader availability and utilization of novel biologic treatments has heralded the emergence of unusual infections, including skin and soft tissue infections. These unusual infections may not be seen in clinical trials due to their overall rare incidence. In modern society, exposure to unusual pathogens can occur in locations far from their natural habitat.¹ Tissue culture remains the gold standard, as histopathology and smears may not identify the organisms. Tissue culture of these less-common pathogens is challenging and may require multiple samples and specialized laboratory evaluations.² In some cases, a skin biopsy with histopathologic examination is an efficient means to confirm or exclude a dermatologic manifestation of an inflammatory disease. This information can quickly change the course of treatment, especially for those on immunosuppressive medications.³ We report a case of unusual cutaneous infection with Chaetomium globosum in a patient concomitantly treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific integrin inhibitor, alongside traditional immunosuppressive therapy.

A 33-year-old woman with Crohn disease on vedolizumab and mercaptopurine was referred to the dermatology clinic with firm, tender, erythematous lesions on the legs of 1 month’s duration (Figure, A). She had a history of inflammatory bowel disease with perianal fistula, sacroiliitis, uveitis, guttate psoriasis, and erythema nodosum. She denied recent medication changes, foreign travel, swimming in freshwater or a hot tub, chills, fever, malaise, night sweats, and weight loss. Physical examination revealed several tender, indurated, erythematous plaques across the legs, ranging in size from 4 to 12 cm. The plaques had central hyperpigmentation, atrophy, and scant scale without ulceration, drainage, or pustules. The largest plaque demonstrated a well-defined area of central fluctuance. Prednisone (60 mg) with taper was initiated for presumed recurrence of erythema nodosum with close follow-up.

This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion for unusual infections in the setting of biologic therapy. An infectious etiology of a cutaneous eruption in an immunosuppressed patient should always be included in the differential diagnosis and actively pursued early on; tissue culture may shorten the treatment course and decrease severity of the disease. Although a direct link between the mechanism of action of vedolizumab and cutaneous infection is not clear, given the rare incidence of this infection, a report of such a case is important to the practicing clinician.

To the Editor:

Broader availability and utilization of novel biologic treatments has heralded the emergence of unusual infections, including skin and soft tissue infections. These unusual infections may not be seen in clinical trials due to their overall rare incidence. In modern society, exposure to unusual pathogens can occur in locations far from their natural habitat.¹ Tissue culture remains the gold standard, as histopathology and smears may not identify the organisms. Tissue culture of these less-common pathogens is challenging and may require multiple samples and specialized laboratory evaluations.² In some cases, a skin biopsy with histopathologic examination is an efficient means to confirm or exclude a dermatologic manifestation of an inflammatory disease. This information can quickly change the course of treatment, especially for those on immunosuppressive medications.³ We report a case of unusual cutaneous infection with Chaetomium globosum in a patient concomitantly treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific integrin inhibitor, alongside traditional immunosuppressive therapy.

A 33-year-old woman with Crohn disease on vedolizumab and mercaptopurine was referred to the dermatology clinic with firm, tender, erythematous lesions on the legs of 1 month’s duration (Figure, A). She had a history of inflammatory bowel disease with perianal fistula, sacroiliitis, uveitis, guttate psoriasis, and erythema nodosum. She denied recent medication changes, foreign travel, swimming in freshwater or a hot tub, chills, fever, malaise, night sweats, and weight loss. Physical examination revealed several tender, indurated, erythematous plaques across the legs, ranging in size from 4 to 12 cm. The plaques had central hyperpigmentation, atrophy, and scant scale without ulceration, drainage, or pustules. The largest plaque demonstrated a well-defined area of central fluctuance. Prednisone (60 mg) with taper was initiated for presumed recurrence of erythema nodosum with close follow-up.

This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion for unusual infections in the setting of biologic therapy. An infectious etiology of a cutaneous eruption in an immunosuppressed patient should always be included in the differential diagnosis and actively pursued early on; tissue culture may shorten the treatment course and decrease severity of the disease. Although a direct link between the mechanism of action of vedolizumab and cutaneous infection is not clear, given the rare incidence of this infection, a report of such a case is important to the practicing clinician.

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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

Booster shots to ramp up protection against COVID-19 infection are slated to begin the week of Sept. 20, the Biden administration announced at a press briefing August 18.

Those who received the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines would be eligible to get a booster shot 8 months after they received the second dose of those vaccines, officials said. Information on boosters for those who got the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be forthcoming.

“We anticipate a booster will [also] likely be needed,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD. The J&J vaccine was not available in the U.S. until March, he said, and ‘’we expect more data on J&J in the coming weeks, so that plan is coming.”

The plan for boosters for the two mRNA vaccines is pending the FDA’s conducting of an independent review and authorizing the third dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, as well as an advisory committee of the CDC making the recommendation.

“We know that even highly effective vaccines become less effective over time,” Dr. Murthy said. “Having reviewed the most current data, it is now our clinical judgment that the time to lay out a plan for the COVID-19 boosters is now.”

Research released Aug. 18 shows waning effectiveness of the two mRNA vaccines.

At the briefing, Dr. Murthy and others continually reassured listeners that while effectiveness against infection declines, the vaccines continue to protect against severe infections, hospitalizations, and death.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you still have a high degree of protection against the worst outcomes,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Data driving the plan

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, cited three research studies published Aug. 18 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that helped to drive the decision to recommend boosters.

Analysis of nursing home COVID-19 data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network showed a significant decline in the effectiveness of the full mRNA vaccine against lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection, from 74.7% before the Delta variant (March 1-May 9, 2021) to 53% when the Delta variant became predominant in the United States. The analysis during the Delta dominant period included 85,000 weekly reports from nearly 15,000 facilities.

Another study looked at more than 10 million New York adults who had been fully vaccinated with either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J vaccine by July 25. During the period from May 3 to July 25, overall, the age-adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased from 91.7% to 79.8%.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization remains high, another study found. An analysis of 1,129 patients who had gotten two doses of an mRNA vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization after 24 weeks. It was 86% at weeks 2-12 and 84% at weeks 13-24.
 

Immunologic facts

Immunologic information also points to the need for a booster, said Anthony Fauci, MD, the chief medical advisor to the president and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“Antibody levels decline over time,” he said, “and higher antibody levels are associated with higher efficacy of the vaccine. Higher levels of antibody may be needed to protect against Delta.”

A booster increased antibody levels by ‘’at least tenfold and possibly more,” he said. And higher levels of antibody may be required to protect against Delta. Taken together, he said, the data support the use of a booster to increase the overall level of protection.
 

Booster details

“We will make sure it is convenient and easy to get the booster shot,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. As with the previous immunization, he said, the booster will be free, and no one will be asked about immigration status.

The plan for booster shots is an attempt to stay ahead of the virus, officials stressed
 

Big picture

Not everyone agrees with the booster dose idea. At a World Health Organization briefing Aug. 18, WHO’s Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, an Indian pediatrician, said that the right thing to do right now ‘’is to wait for the science to tell us when boosters, which groups of people, and which vaccines need boosters.”

Like others, she also broached the ‘’moral and ethical argument of giving people third doses, when they’re already well protected and while the rest of the world is waiting for their primary immunization.”

Dr. Swaminathan does see a role for boosters to protect immunocompromised people but noted that ‘’that’s a small number of people.” Widespread boosters ‘’will only lead to more variants, to more escape variants, and perhaps we’re heading into more dire situations.”



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