Infectious Diseases

The future of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is here, according to interim study results demonstrating the superiority of long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) over the current workhorse, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).

In a prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women, CAB-LA was shown to reduce risk for HIV infection by 66%. The study was terminated early, owing to strong evidence of efficacy in the first preplanned interim endpoint analysis. The study findings were published Aug. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The lesson is not that TDF-FTC doesn’t work or has major problems; it is a very safe, very well-tolerated agent and astonishingly effective if taken as prescribed,” Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, lead author and codirector of the Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“The reason that we were able to show that cabotegravir was superior is because we enrolled a very young, very highly at-risk, very underresourced, underrepresented, highly sexually active group who weren’t able to take PrEP the way it was prescribed,” he said.

Study participants were assigned to receive either active CAB 600 mg intramuscularly with TDF-FTC placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg) with a CAB procedure in three phases:
 

• An oral-tablet 5-week lead-in phase, a blinded injection phase beginning at week 5.
• An injection at week 9 and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 153.
• An open-label “tail” phase consisting of oral TDF/FTC to provide ongoing for participants discontinuing injections.

The median age of study participants was 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years); 12.5% (570) identified as transgender women; 49.8% (845/1,698) of U.S. participants were Black patients.

During follow-up, HIV infections were identified in 57 participants, including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment (13 in the CAB group, incidence 0.41 per 100 person-years, vs. 39 in the TDF-FTC group, incidence 1.22 per 100 person-years). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62) CAB vs. TDF-FTC (P < .001). Consistent effects were observed across prespecified subgroups and populations.

Among participants in the CAB group, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in one of four of the baseline HIV infection cases. Among participants in the TDF-FTC group, 2 of 39 incident infections occurred despite drug concentration measurements that indicated good PrEP adherence.

Although injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of the CAB group, only 2.4% of patients (50) discontinued treatment. Most reactions began a median of 1 day (IQR, 0-2 days) post injection. They were of mild to moderate severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness) and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2-6 days). Injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of the participants in the TDF-FTC group who received at least one placebo injection.

Rates of severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were similar between participants in the CAB and TDF-FTC groups. They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

In a post hoc analysis, the mean annualized weight increase was 1.23 kg/y (95% CI, 1.05-1.42) in the CAB group, compared with 0.37 kg/y (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) in the TDF-FTC group. Most of these differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss among TDF-FTC participants; weight changes between groups were similar thereafter (~1 kg/y for both groups).
 

New modality, new challenges

“We’re constantly searching for new modalities to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients, especially those folks with the highest need for PrEP,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC-Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. “Being able to offer an injectable option is going to be a game changer, but it will be critical to pinpoint structural factors that affect adherence,” she added.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee also pointed to cases of integrase inhibitor resistance (both in the study and the larger clinical arena), which she believes are concerning. “It’s still a conversation that you’ll want to have with a patient; I wonder if we need more discussion about how we handle that in the clinical setting, even if it’s fairly uncommon,” she said.

When asked, Dr. Landovitz emphasized the rarity of breakthrough cases but acknowledged that there appears to be a pattern whereby the first breakthrough occurs with a trickle of virus and then bursts out with higher levels of virus at some point.

“CDC is actually thinking very hard about whether these long-acting PrEP agents obligate a change to the HIV screening process [e.g., a viral load or RNA-based test] rather than a conventional HIV test,” Dr. Landovitz said. He went on to say that in the ongoing, open-label portion of the study, investigators hope to learn whether one can avoid resistance by catching the first breakthrough earlier. That would help inform clinical implementation, he explained. He said that he challenges practitioners and health care communities to avoid some of the mistakes made with the oral PrEP rollout, namely, universal access without proper implementation of planning and testing protocols.

“By default, PrEP is much more decentralized and demedicalized, especially in primary care,” said Dr. Rosengren-Hovee. “We need more studies looking at real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

The future of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is here, according to interim study results demonstrating the superiority of long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) over the current workhorse, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).

In a prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women, CAB-LA was shown to reduce risk for HIV infection by 66%. The study was terminated early, owing to strong evidence of efficacy in the first preplanned interim endpoint analysis. The study findings were published Aug. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The lesson is not that TDF-FTC doesn’t work or has major problems; it is a very safe, very well-tolerated agent and astonishingly effective if taken as prescribed,” Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, lead author and codirector of the Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“The reason that we were able to show that cabotegravir was superior is because we enrolled a very young, very highly at-risk, very underresourced, underrepresented, highly sexually active group who weren’t able to take PrEP the way it was prescribed,” he said.

Study participants were assigned to receive either active CAB 600 mg intramuscularly with TDF-FTC placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg) with a CAB procedure in three phases:
 

• An oral-tablet 5-week lead-in phase, a blinded injection phase beginning at week 5.
• An injection at week 9 and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 153.
• An open-label “tail” phase consisting of oral TDF/FTC to provide ongoing for participants discontinuing injections.

The median age of study participants was 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years); 12.5% (570) identified as transgender women; 49.8% (845/1,698) of U.S. participants were Black patients.

During follow-up, HIV infections were identified in 57 participants, including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment (13 in the CAB group, incidence 0.41 per 100 person-years, vs. 39 in the TDF-FTC group, incidence 1.22 per 100 person-years). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62) CAB vs. TDF-FTC (P < .001). Consistent effects were observed across prespecified subgroups and populations.

Among participants in the CAB group, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in one of four of the baseline HIV infection cases. Among participants in the TDF-FTC group, 2 of 39 incident infections occurred despite drug concentration measurements that indicated good PrEP adherence.

Although injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of the CAB group, only 2.4% of patients (50) discontinued treatment. Most reactions began a median of 1 day (IQR, 0-2 days) post injection. They were of mild to moderate severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness) and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2-6 days). Injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of the participants in the TDF-FTC group who received at least one placebo injection.

Rates of severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were similar between participants in the CAB and TDF-FTC groups. They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

In a post hoc analysis, the mean annualized weight increase was 1.23 kg/y (95% CI, 1.05-1.42) in the CAB group, compared with 0.37 kg/y (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) in the TDF-FTC group. Most of these differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss among TDF-FTC participants; weight changes between groups were similar thereafter (~1 kg/y for both groups).
 

New modality, new challenges

“We’re constantly searching for new modalities to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients, especially those folks with the highest need for PrEP,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC-Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. “Being able to offer an injectable option is going to be a game changer, but it will be critical to pinpoint structural factors that affect adherence,” she added.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee also pointed to cases of integrase inhibitor resistance (both in the study and the larger clinical arena), which she believes are concerning. “It’s still a conversation that you’ll want to have with a patient; I wonder if we need more discussion about how we handle that in the clinical setting, even if it’s fairly uncommon,” she said.

When asked, Dr. Landovitz emphasized the rarity of breakthrough cases but acknowledged that there appears to be a pattern whereby the first breakthrough occurs with a trickle of virus and then bursts out with higher levels of virus at some point.

“CDC is actually thinking very hard about whether these long-acting PrEP agents obligate a change to the HIV screening process [e.g., a viral load or RNA-based test] rather than a conventional HIV test,” Dr. Landovitz said. He went on to say that in the ongoing, open-label portion of the study, investigators hope to learn whether one can avoid resistance by catching the first breakthrough earlier. That would help inform clinical implementation, he explained. He said that he challenges practitioners and health care communities to avoid some of the mistakes made with the oral PrEP rollout, namely, universal access without proper implementation of planning and testing protocols.

“By default, PrEP is much more decentralized and demedicalized, especially in primary care,” said Dr. Rosengren-Hovee. “We need more studies looking at real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

The future of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is here, according to interim study results demonstrating the superiority of long-acting, injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) over the current workhorse, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC).

In a prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women, CAB-LA was shown to reduce risk for HIV infection by 66%. The study was terminated early, owing to strong evidence of efficacy in the first preplanned interim endpoint analysis. The study findings were published Aug. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The lesson is not that TDF-FTC doesn’t work or has major problems; it is a very safe, very well-tolerated agent and astonishingly effective if taken as prescribed,” Raphael J. Landovitz, MD, lead author and codirector of the Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“The reason that we were able to show that cabotegravir was superior is because we enrolled a very young, very highly at-risk, very underresourced, underrepresented, highly sexually active group who weren’t able to take PrEP the way it was prescribed,” he said.

Study participants were assigned to receive either active CAB 600 mg intramuscularly with TDF-FTC placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg) with a CAB procedure in three phases:
 

• An oral-tablet 5-week lead-in phase, a blinded injection phase beginning at week 5.
• An injection at week 9 and every 8 weeks thereafter through week 153.
• An open-label “tail” phase consisting of oral TDF/FTC to provide ongoing for participants discontinuing injections.

The median age of study participants was 26 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years); 12.5% (570) identified as transgender women; 49.8% (845/1,698) of U.S. participants were Black patients.

During follow-up, HIV infections were identified in 57 participants, including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment (13 in the CAB group, incidence 0.41 per 100 person-years, vs. 39 in the TDF-FTC group, incidence 1.22 per 100 person-years). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection was 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62) CAB vs. TDF-FTC (P < .001). Consistent effects were observed across prespecified subgroups and populations.

Among participants in the CAB group, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in one of four of the baseline HIV infection cases. Among participants in the TDF-FTC group, 2 of 39 incident infections occurred despite drug concentration measurements that indicated good PrEP adherence.

Although injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of the CAB group, only 2.4% of patients (50) discontinued treatment. Most reactions began a median of 1 day (IQR, 0-2 days) post injection. They were of mild to moderate severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness) and lasted a median of 3 days (IQR, 2-6 days). Injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of the participants in the TDF-FTC group who received at least one placebo injection.

Rates of severe adverse effects (grade 3 or higher) were similar between participants in the CAB and TDF-FTC groups. They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).

In a post hoc analysis, the mean annualized weight increase was 1.23 kg/y (95% CI, 1.05-1.42) in the CAB group, compared with 0.37 kg/y (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) in the TDF-FTC group. Most of these differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss among TDF-FTC participants; weight changes between groups were similar thereafter (~1 kg/y for both groups).
 

New modality, new challenges

“We’re constantly searching for new modalities to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients, especially those folks with the highest need for PrEP,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC-Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. “Being able to offer an injectable option is going to be a game changer, but it will be critical to pinpoint structural factors that affect adherence,” she added.

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee also pointed to cases of integrase inhibitor resistance (both in the study and the larger clinical arena), which she believes are concerning. “It’s still a conversation that you’ll want to have with a patient; I wonder if we need more discussion about how we handle that in the clinical setting, even if it’s fairly uncommon,” she said.

When asked, Dr. Landovitz emphasized the rarity of breakthrough cases but acknowledged that there appears to be a pattern whereby the first breakthrough occurs with a trickle of virus and then bursts out with higher levels of virus at some point.

“CDC is actually thinking very hard about whether these long-acting PrEP agents obligate a change to the HIV screening process [e.g., a viral load or RNA-based test] rather than a conventional HIV test,” Dr. Landovitz said. He went on to say that in the ongoing, open-label portion of the study, investigators hope to learn whether one can avoid resistance by catching the first breakthrough earlier. That would help inform clinical implementation, he explained. He said that he challenges practitioners and health care communities to avoid some of the mistakes made with the oral PrEP rollout, namely, universal access without proper implementation of planning and testing protocols.

“By default, PrEP is much more decentralized and demedicalized, especially in primary care,” said Dr. Rosengren-Hovee. “We need more studies looking at real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.

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

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as masking, staying home, limiting travel, and social distancing, have been doing more than reducing the risk for COVID-19. They’re also having an impact on infection rates and the timing of seasonal surges of other common respiratory diseases, according to an article published July 23 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Typically, respiratory pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory adenoviruses increase in the fall and remain high throughout winter, following the same basic patterns as influenza. Although the historically low rates of influenza remained low into spring 2021, that’s not the case for several other common respiratory viruses.

“Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases,” wrote Sonja J. Olsen, PhD, and her colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She told this news organization that clinicians should use multipathogen testing to help guide treatment.

The authors also underscore the importance of fall influenza vaccination campaigns for anyone aged 6 months or older.

Timothy Brewer, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, agreed that it’s important for health care professionals to consider off-season illnesses in their patients.

“Practitioners should be aware that if they see a sick child in the summer, outside of what normally might be influenza season, but they look like they have influenza, consider potentially influenza and test for it, because it might be possible that we may have disrupted that natural pattern,” Dr. Brewer told this news organization. Dr. Brewer, who was not involved in the CDC research, said it’s also “critically important” to encourage influenza vaccination as the season approaches.

The CDC researchers used the U.S. World Health Organization Collaborating Laboratories System and the CDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System to analyze virologic data from Oct. 3, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for influenza and Jan. 4, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for other respiratory viruses. The authors compared virus circulation during these periods to circulation during the same dates from four previous years.

Data to calculate influenza and RSV hospitalization rates came from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network and RSV Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

The authors report that flu activity dropped dramatically in March 2020 to its lowest levels since 1997, the earliest season for which data are available. Only 0.2% of more than 1 million specimens tested positive for influenza; the rate of hospitalizations for lab-confirmed flu was 0.8 per 100,000 people. Flu levels remained low through the summer, fall, and on to May 2021.

A potential drawback to this low activity, however, is a more prevalent and severe upcoming flu season, the authors write. The repeated exposure to flu viruses every year often “does not lead to illness, but it does serve to boost our immune response to influenza viruses,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “The absence of influenza viruses in the community over the last year means that we are not getting these regular boosts to our immune system. When we finally get exposed, our body may mount a weak response, and this could mean we develop a more clinically severe illness.”

Children are most susceptible to that phenomenon because they haven’t had a lifetime of exposure to flu viruses, Dr. Olsen said.

“An immunologically naive child may be more likely to develop a severe illness than someone who has lived through several influenza seasons,” she said. “This is why it is especially important for everyone 6 months and older to get vaccinated against influenza this season.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus infections rebounded fairly quickly after their decline in March 2020 and started increasing in May 2020 until they reached “near prepandemic seasonal levels,” the authors write.

RSV infections dropped from 15.3% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.4% by April and then stayed below 1% through the end of 2020. In past years, weekly positive results climbed to 3% in October and peaked at 12.5% to 16.7% in late December. Instead, RSV weekly positive results began increasing in April 2021, rising from 1.1% to 2.8% in May.

The “unusually timed” late spring increase in RSV “is probably associated with various nonpharmaceutical measures that have been in place but are now relaxing,” Dr. Olsen stated.

The RSV hospitalization rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to 27.1 and 33.4 per 100,000 people in the previous 2 years. Of all RSV hospitalizations in the past year, 76.5% occurred in April-May 2021.

Rates of illness caused by the four common human coronaviruses (OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1) dropped from 7.5% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.3% in April 2020 and stayed below 1% through February 2021. Then they climbed to 6.6% by May 2021. Infection rates of parainfluenza viruses types 1-4 similarly dropped from 2.6% in January 2020 to 1% in March 2020 and stayed below 1% until April 2021. Since then, rates of the common coronaviruses increased to 6.6% and parainfluenza viruses to 10.9% in May 2021.

Normally, parainfluenza viruses peak in October-November and May-June, so “the current increase could represent a return to prepandemic seasonality,” the authors write.

Human pneumoviruses’ weekly positive results initially increased from 4.2% in January 2020 to 7% in March and then fell to 1.9% the second week of April and remained below 1% through May 2021. In typical years, these viruses peak from 6.2% to 7.7% in March-April. Respiratory adenovirus activity similarly dropped to historically low levels in April 2021 and then began increasing to reach 3% by May 2021, the usual level for that month.

“The different circulation patterns observed across respiratory viruses probably also reflect differences in the virus transmission routes and how effective various nonpharmaceutical measures are at stopping transmission,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “As pandemic mitigation measures continue to be adjusted, we expect to see more changes in the circulation of these viruses, including a return to prepandemic circulation, as seen for rhinoviruses and enteroviruses.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus rates dropped from 14.9% in March 2020 to 3.2% in May – lower than typical – and then climbed to a peak in October 2020. The peak (21.7% weekly positive results) was, however, still lower than the usual median of 32.8%. After dropping to 9.9% in January 2021, it then rose 19.1% in May, potentially reflecting “the usual spring peak that has occurred in previous years,” the authors write.

The authors note that it’s not yet clear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures will continue to affect respiratory virus circulation.

The authors hypothesize that the reasons for a seeming return to seasonal activity of respiratory adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and enteroviruses could involve “different transmission mechanisms, the role of asymptomatic transmission, and prolonged survival of these nonenveloped viruses on surfaces, all of which might make these viruses less susceptible to nonpharmaceutical interventions.”

Dr. Brewer, of UCLA, agreed.

All the viruses basically “flatline except for adenoviruses and enteroviruses, and they behave a little differently in terms of how they spread,” he said. “Enteroviruses are much more likely to be fecal-oral spread than the other viruses [in the study].”

The delayed circulation of parainfluenza and human coronaviruses may have resulted from suspension of in-person classes through late winter 2020, they write, but that doesn’t explain the relative absence of pneumovirus activity, which usually affects the same young pediatric populations as RSV.

Dr. Brewer said California is seeing a surge of RSV right now, as are many states, especially throughout in the South. He’s not surprised by RSV’s deferred season, because those most affected – children younger than 2 years – are less likely to wear masks now and were “not going to daycare, not being out in public” in 2020. “As people are doing more activities, that’s probably why RSV has been starting to go up since April,” he said.

Despite the fact that, unlike many East Asian cultures, the United States has not traditionally been a mask-wearing culture, Dr. Brewer wouldn’t be surprised if more Americans begin wearing masks during flu season. “Hopefully another thing that will come out of this is better hand hygiene, with people just getting used to washing their hands more, particularly after they come home from being out,” he added.

Dr. Brewer similarly emphasized the importance of flu vaccination for the upcoming season, especially for younger children who may have poorer natural immunity to influenza, owing to its low circulation rates in 2020-2021.

The study was funded by the CDC. Dr. Brewer and Dr. Olsen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as masking, staying home, limiting travel, and social distancing, have been doing more than reducing the risk for COVID-19. They’re also having an impact on infection rates and the timing of seasonal surges of other common respiratory diseases, according to an article published July 23 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Typically, respiratory pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory adenoviruses increase in the fall and remain high throughout winter, following the same basic patterns as influenza. Although the historically low rates of influenza remained low into spring 2021, that’s not the case for several other common respiratory viruses.

“Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases,” wrote Sonja J. Olsen, PhD, and her colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She told this news organization that clinicians should use multipathogen testing to help guide treatment.

The authors also underscore the importance of fall influenza vaccination campaigns for anyone aged 6 months or older.

Timothy Brewer, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, agreed that it’s important for health care professionals to consider off-season illnesses in their patients.

“Practitioners should be aware that if they see a sick child in the summer, outside of what normally might be influenza season, but they look like they have influenza, consider potentially influenza and test for it, because it might be possible that we may have disrupted that natural pattern,” Dr. Brewer told this news organization. Dr. Brewer, who was not involved in the CDC research, said it’s also “critically important” to encourage influenza vaccination as the season approaches.

The CDC researchers used the U.S. World Health Organization Collaborating Laboratories System and the CDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System to analyze virologic data from Oct. 3, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for influenza and Jan. 4, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for other respiratory viruses. The authors compared virus circulation during these periods to circulation during the same dates from four previous years.

Data to calculate influenza and RSV hospitalization rates came from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network and RSV Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

The authors report that flu activity dropped dramatically in March 2020 to its lowest levels since 1997, the earliest season for which data are available. Only 0.2% of more than 1 million specimens tested positive for influenza; the rate of hospitalizations for lab-confirmed flu was 0.8 per 100,000 people. Flu levels remained low through the summer, fall, and on to May 2021.

A potential drawback to this low activity, however, is a more prevalent and severe upcoming flu season, the authors write. The repeated exposure to flu viruses every year often “does not lead to illness, but it does serve to boost our immune response to influenza viruses,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “The absence of influenza viruses in the community over the last year means that we are not getting these regular boosts to our immune system. When we finally get exposed, our body may mount a weak response, and this could mean we develop a more clinically severe illness.”

Children are most susceptible to that phenomenon because they haven’t had a lifetime of exposure to flu viruses, Dr. Olsen said.

“An immunologically naive child may be more likely to develop a severe illness than someone who has lived through several influenza seasons,” she said. “This is why it is especially important for everyone 6 months and older to get vaccinated against influenza this season.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus infections rebounded fairly quickly after their decline in March 2020 and started increasing in May 2020 until they reached “near prepandemic seasonal levels,” the authors write.

RSV infections dropped from 15.3% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.4% by April and then stayed below 1% through the end of 2020. In past years, weekly positive results climbed to 3% in October and peaked at 12.5% to 16.7% in late December. Instead, RSV weekly positive results began increasing in April 2021, rising from 1.1% to 2.8% in May.

The “unusually timed” late spring increase in RSV “is probably associated with various nonpharmaceutical measures that have been in place but are now relaxing,” Dr. Olsen stated.

The RSV hospitalization rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to 27.1 and 33.4 per 100,000 people in the previous 2 years. Of all RSV hospitalizations in the past year, 76.5% occurred in April-May 2021.

Rates of illness caused by the four common human coronaviruses (OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1) dropped from 7.5% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.3% in April 2020 and stayed below 1% through February 2021. Then they climbed to 6.6% by May 2021. Infection rates of parainfluenza viruses types 1-4 similarly dropped from 2.6% in January 2020 to 1% in March 2020 and stayed below 1% until April 2021. Since then, rates of the common coronaviruses increased to 6.6% and parainfluenza viruses to 10.9% in May 2021.

Normally, parainfluenza viruses peak in October-November and May-June, so “the current increase could represent a return to prepandemic seasonality,” the authors write.

Human pneumoviruses’ weekly positive results initially increased from 4.2% in January 2020 to 7% in March and then fell to 1.9% the second week of April and remained below 1% through May 2021. In typical years, these viruses peak from 6.2% to 7.7% in March-April. Respiratory adenovirus activity similarly dropped to historically low levels in April 2021 and then began increasing to reach 3% by May 2021, the usual level for that month.

“The different circulation patterns observed across respiratory viruses probably also reflect differences in the virus transmission routes and how effective various nonpharmaceutical measures are at stopping transmission,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “As pandemic mitigation measures continue to be adjusted, we expect to see more changes in the circulation of these viruses, including a return to prepandemic circulation, as seen for rhinoviruses and enteroviruses.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus rates dropped from 14.9% in March 2020 to 3.2% in May – lower than typical – and then climbed to a peak in October 2020. The peak (21.7% weekly positive results) was, however, still lower than the usual median of 32.8%. After dropping to 9.9% in January 2021, it then rose 19.1% in May, potentially reflecting “the usual spring peak that has occurred in previous years,” the authors write.

The authors note that it’s not yet clear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures will continue to affect respiratory virus circulation.

The authors hypothesize that the reasons for a seeming return to seasonal activity of respiratory adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and enteroviruses could involve “different transmission mechanisms, the role of asymptomatic transmission, and prolonged survival of these nonenveloped viruses on surfaces, all of which might make these viruses less susceptible to nonpharmaceutical interventions.”

Dr. Brewer, of UCLA, agreed.

All the viruses basically “flatline except for adenoviruses and enteroviruses, and they behave a little differently in terms of how they spread,” he said. “Enteroviruses are much more likely to be fecal-oral spread than the other viruses [in the study].”

The delayed circulation of parainfluenza and human coronaviruses may have resulted from suspension of in-person classes through late winter 2020, they write, but that doesn’t explain the relative absence of pneumovirus activity, which usually affects the same young pediatric populations as RSV.

Dr. Brewer said California is seeing a surge of RSV right now, as are many states, especially throughout in the South. He’s not surprised by RSV’s deferred season, because those most affected – children younger than 2 years – are less likely to wear masks now and were “not going to daycare, not being out in public” in 2020. “As people are doing more activities, that’s probably why RSV has been starting to go up since April,” he said.

Despite the fact that, unlike many East Asian cultures, the United States has not traditionally been a mask-wearing culture, Dr. Brewer wouldn’t be surprised if more Americans begin wearing masks during flu season. “Hopefully another thing that will come out of this is better hand hygiene, with people just getting used to washing their hands more, particularly after they come home from being out,” he added.

Dr. Brewer similarly emphasized the importance of flu vaccination for the upcoming season, especially for younger children who may have poorer natural immunity to influenza, owing to its low circulation rates in 2020-2021.

The study was funded by the CDC. Dr. Brewer and Dr. Olsen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as masking, staying home, limiting travel, and social distancing, have been doing more than reducing the risk for COVID-19. They’re also having an impact on infection rates and the timing of seasonal surges of other common respiratory diseases, according to an article published July 23 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Typically, respiratory pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), common cold coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, and respiratory adenoviruses increase in the fall and remain high throughout winter, following the same basic patterns as influenza. Although the historically low rates of influenza remained low into spring 2021, that’s not the case for several other common respiratory viruses.

“Clinicians should be aware of increases in some respiratory virus activity and remain vigilant for off-season increases,” wrote Sonja J. Olsen, PhD, and her colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She told this news organization that clinicians should use multipathogen testing to help guide treatment.

The authors also underscore the importance of fall influenza vaccination campaigns for anyone aged 6 months or older.

Timothy Brewer, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and of epidemiology at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, agreed that it’s important for health care professionals to consider off-season illnesses in their patients.

“Practitioners should be aware that if they see a sick child in the summer, outside of what normally might be influenza season, but they look like they have influenza, consider potentially influenza and test for it, because it might be possible that we may have disrupted that natural pattern,” Dr. Brewer told this news organization. Dr. Brewer, who was not involved in the CDC research, said it’s also “critically important” to encourage influenza vaccination as the season approaches.

The CDC researchers used the U.S. World Health Organization Collaborating Laboratories System and the CDC’s National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System to analyze virologic data from Oct. 3, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for influenza and Jan. 4, 2020, to May 22, 2021, for other respiratory viruses. The authors compared virus circulation during these periods to circulation during the same dates from four previous years.

Data to calculate influenza and RSV hospitalization rates came from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network and RSV Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

The authors report that flu activity dropped dramatically in March 2020 to its lowest levels since 1997, the earliest season for which data are available. Only 0.2% of more than 1 million specimens tested positive for influenza; the rate of hospitalizations for lab-confirmed flu was 0.8 per 100,000 people. Flu levels remained low through the summer, fall, and on to May 2021.

A potential drawback to this low activity, however, is a more prevalent and severe upcoming flu season, the authors write. The repeated exposure to flu viruses every year often “does not lead to illness, but it does serve to boost our immune response to influenza viruses,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “The absence of influenza viruses in the community over the last year means that we are not getting these regular boosts to our immune system. When we finally get exposed, our body may mount a weak response, and this could mean we develop a more clinically severe illness.”

Children are most susceptible to that phenomenon because they haven’t had a lifetime of exposure to flu viruses, Dr. Olsen said.

“An immunologically naive child may be more likely to develop a severe illness than someone who has lived through several influenza seasons,” she said. “This is why it is especially important for everyone 6 months and older to get vaccinated against influenza this season.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus infections rebounded fairly quickly after their decline in March 2020 and started increasing in May 2020 until they reached “near prepandemic seasonal levels,” the authors write.

RSV infections dropped from 15.3% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.4% by April and then stayed below 1% through the end of 2020. In past years, weekly positive results climbed to 3% in October and peaked at 12.5% to 16.7% in late December. Instead, RSV weekly positive results began increasing in April 2021, rising from 1.1% to 2.8% in May.

The “unusually timed” late spring increase in RSV “is probably associated with various nonpharmaceutical measures that have been in place but are now relaxing,” Dr. Olsen stated.

The RSV hospitalization rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people from October 2020 to April 2021, compared to 27.1 and 33.4 per 100,000 people in the previous 2 years. Of all RSV hospitalizations in the past year, 76.5% occurred in April-May 2021.

Rates of illness caused by the four common human coronaviruses (OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1) dropped from 7.5% of weekly positive results in January 2020 to 1.3% in April 2020 and stayed below 1% through February 2021. Then they climbed to 6.6% by May 2021. Infection rates of parainfluenza viruses types 1-4 similarly dropped from 2.6% in January 2020 to 1% in March 2020 and stayed below 1% until April 2021. Since then, rates of the common coronaviruses increased to 6.6% and parainfluenza viruses to 10.9% in May 2021.

Normally, parainfluenza viruses peak in October-November and May-June, so “the current increase could represent a return to prepandemic seasonality,” the authors write.

Human pneumoviruses’ weekly positive results initially increased from 4.2% in January 2020 to 7% in March and then fell to 1.9% the second week of April and remained below 1% through May 2021. In typical years, these viruses peak from 6.2% to 7.7% in March-April. Respiratory adenovirus activity similarly dropped to historically low levels in April 2021 and then began increasing to reach 3% by May 2021, the usual level for that month.

“The different circulation patterns observed across respiratory viruses probably also reflect differences in the virus transmission routes and how effective various nonpharmaceutical measures are at stopping transmission,” Dr. Olsen said in an interview. “As pandemic mitigation measures continue to be adjusted, we expect to see more changes in the circulation of these viruses, including a return to prepandemic circulation, as seen for rhinoviruses and enteroviruses.”

Rhinovirus and enterovirus rates dropped from 14.9% in March 2020 to 3.2% in May – lower than typical – and then climbed to a peak in October 2020. The peak (21.7% weekly positive results) was, however, still lower than the usual median of 32.8%. After dropping to 9.9% in January 2021, it then rose 19.1% in May, potentially reflecting “the usual spring peak that has occurred in previous years,” the authors write.

The authors note that it’s not yet clear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related mitigation measures will continue to affect respiratory virus circulation.

The authors hypothesize that the reasons for a seeming return to seasonal activity of respiratory adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and enteroviruses could involve “different transmission mechanisms, the role of asymptomatic transmission, and prolonged survival of these nonenveloped viruses on surfaces, all of which might make these viruses less susceptible to nonpharmaceutical interventions.”

Dr. Brewer, of UCLA, agreed.

All the viruses basically “flatline except for adenoviruses and enteroviruses, and they behave a little differently in terms of how they spread,” he said. “Enteroviruses are much more likely to be fecal-oral spread than the other viruses [in the study].”

The delayed circulation of parainfluenza and human coronaviruses may have resulted from suspension of in-person classes through late winter 2020, they write, but that doesn’t explain the relative absence of pneumovirus activity, which usually affects the same young pediatric populations as RSV.

Dr. Brewer said California is seeing a surge of RSV right now, as are many states, especially throughout in the South. He’s not surprised by RSV’s deferred season, because those most affected – children younger than 2 years – are less likely to wear masks now and were “not going to daycare, not being out in public” in 2020. “As people are doing more activities, that’s probably why RSV has been starting to go up since April,” he said.

Despite the fact that, unlike many East Asian cultures, the United States has not traditionally been a mask-wearing culture, Dr. Brewer wouldn’t be surprised if more Americans begin wearing masks during flu season. “Hopefully another thing that will come out of this is better hand hygiene, with people just getting used to washing their hands more, particularly after they come home from being out,” he added.

Dr. Brewer similarly emphasized the importance of flu vaccination for the upcoming season, especially for younger children who may have poorer natural immunity to influenza, owing to its low circulation rates in 2020-2021.

The study was funded by the CDC. Dr. Brewer and Dr. Olsen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anaplasmosis prevalence in New York state nearly quadrupled statewide from 2010 to 2018, new research suggests, increasing by more than eightfold in the region surrounding Albany, the state capital. The proportion of ticks carrying Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes the tick-borne disease, also increased during the study period. 

Although not as well-recognized as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis is one of the most common tickborne diseases in the United States. The bacterial disease is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of blacklegged ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum, and often causes fever, headache, muscle aches, and chills. If treatment is delayed – or if a patient has underlying medical conditions – anaplasmosis can lead to difficulty breathing, bleeding problems, organ failure, and even death.

Since anaplasmosis become a nationally notifiable disease in 1999, cases have increased 16-fold in the United States, from 351 cases in 2000 to a high of 5,762 cases in 2017, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just eight states – Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New York – make up 90% of reported cases.

“While Lyme disease remains the most common tick-borne illness reported in New York state, anaplasmosis continues to account for a growing proportion of our tick-borne disease cases each year,” Melissa Prusinski, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health and author of the study, told this news organization in an email. “It is critically important to investigate the environmental and epidemiological drivers facilitating this increase to better understand why and how risk for this serious illness is increasing.” The results were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

For the study, investigators analyzed human anaplasmosis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health from 2010-2018. They also included data from tick collection and pathogen testing in order to determine whether the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks increased along with cases. All New York State counties were included in the study, apart from the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

There were 5,146 reported anaplasmosis cases in New York, with annual case numbers peaking at 1,112 in 2017. Researchers reported a dip in cases in 2018, a trend that was also seen nationally. Anaplasmosis incidence surged in the area surrounding Albany, increasing 8.4-fold from 4.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2010 to 36.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 2018.

Ms. Prusinski noted that the rapid increase in and around this inland hot spot is unlike the gradual spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses like babesiosis, which spreads from coastal areas both northward and westward across New York. The research team also found that the incidence of ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum nearly doubled statewide and increased fourfold – from 2.9% to 12% – between 2010 and 2018 in the Albany area.

This increase in cases could be the result, at least in part, of more robust testing efforts over time, said Susan Elias, PhD, of the Vector-Borne Disease Laboratory at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough. She was not involved with the recently published study. “The more you look for something, the more you find,” she said. For example, she added, a 602% surge in anaplasmosis cases in Maine from 2013-2017 occurred alongside a 10-fold increase in use of tick-borne disease panels that test for multiple pathogens.

Ms. Prusinski agreed that increased testing at least partially explains the surge of cases in New York, but she did not have data on how many tick-borne disease panels were used to diagnose cases in the state.

Proliferation of A. phagocytophilum in tick populations could also partially explain this dramatic increase in cases. With the suburbanization of America, “we have basically laid out a buffet” for ticks, Dr. Elias said. Patches of forest and yards create edge habitats where ticks, and the small mammals they feed on, thrive. “Then, once you have a large expanding blacklegged tick population, it makes it easier for the pathogens and carriers to amplify,” she added.

While the study did not differentiate between a variant of A. phagocytophilum associated with small mammals that causes illness and another found in white-tailed deer that is nonpathogenic, Ms. Prusinski suspects that the infectious variant is likely more prevalent and is circulating in animals and ticks in and around Albany. Research is ongoing to see if this could help explain the spread of disease in this anaplasmosis hotspot.

“The unique geographic pattern of anaplasmosis spread in New York state and elsewhere leads to many further questions about the vector ecology and epidemiology of this emerging tick-borne illness,” Ms. Prusinski added. “Learning all we can about this dynamic disease system will help us better identify at-risk populations and may lead to novel ways to prevent anaplasmosis.”

Dr. Elias and Ms. Prusinski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anaplasmosis prevalence in New York state nearly quadrupled statewide from 2010 to 2018, new research suggests, increasing by more than eightfold in the region surrounding Albany, the state capital. The proportion of ticks carrying Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes the tick-borne disease, also increased during the study period. 

Although not as well-recognized as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis is one of the most common tickborne diseases in the United States. The bacterial disease is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of blacklegged ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum, and often causes fever, headache, muscle aches, and chills. If treatment is delayed – or if a patient has underlying medical conditions – anaplasmosis can lead to difficulty breathing, bleeding problems, organ failure, and even death.

Since anaplasmosis become a nationally notifiable disease in 1999, cases have increased 16-fold in the United States, from 351 cases in 2000 to a high of 5,762 cases in 2017, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just eight states – Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New York – make up 90% of reported cases.

“While Lyme disease remains the most common tick-borne illness reported in New York state, anaplasmosis continues to account for a growing proportion of our tick-borne disease cases each year,” Melissa Prusinski, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health and author of the study, told this news organization in an email. “It is critically important to investigate the environmental and epidemiological drivers facilitating this increase to better understand why and how risk for this serious illness is increasing.” The results were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

For the study, investigators analyzed human anaplasmosis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health from 2010-2018. They also included data from tick collection and pathogen testing in order to determine whether the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks increased along with cases. All New York State counties were included in the study, apart from the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

There were 5,146 reported anaplasmosis cases in New York, with annual case numbers peaking at 1,112 in 2017. Researchers reported a dip in cases in 2018, a trend that was also seen nationally. Anaplasmosis incidence surged in the area surrounding Albany, increasing 8.4-fold from 4.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2010 to 36.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 2018.

Ms. Prusinski noted that the rapid increase in and around this inland hot spot is unlike the gradual spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses like babesiosis, which spreads from coastal areas both northward and westward across New York. The research team also found that the incidence of ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum nearly doubled statewide and increased fourfold – from 2.9% to 12% – between 2010 and 2018 in the Albany area.

This increase in cases could be the result, at least in part, of more robust testing efforts over time, said Susan Elias, PhD, of the Vector-Borne Disease Laboratory at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough. She was not involved with the recently published study. “The more you look for something, the more you find,” she said. For example, she added, a 602% surge in anaplasmosis cases in Maine from 2013-2017 occurred alongside a 10-fold increase in use of tick-borne disease panels that test for multiple pathogens.

Ms. Prusinski agreed that increased testing at least partially explains the surge of cases in New York, but she did not have data on how many tick-borne disease panels were used to diagnose cases in the state.

Proliferation of A. phagocytophilum in tick populations could also partially explain this dramatic increase in cases. With the suburbanization of America, “we have basically laid out a buffet” for ticks, Dr. Elias said. Patches of forest and yards create edge habitats where ticks, and the small mammals they feed on, thrive. “Then, once you have a large expanding blacklegged tick population, it makes it easier for the pathogens and carriers to amplify,” she added.

While the study did not differentiate between a variant of A. phagocytophilum associated with small mammals that causes illness and another found in white-tailed deer that is nonpathogenic, Ms. Prusinski suspects that the infectious variant is likely more prevalent and is circulating in animals and ticks in and around Albany. Research is ongoing to see if this could help explain the spread of disease in this anaplasmosis hotspot.

“The unique geographic pattern of anaplasmosis spread in New York state and elsewhere leads to many further questions about the vector ecology and epidemiology of this emerging tick-borne illness,” Ms. Prusinski added. “Learning all we can about this dynamic disease system will help us better identify at-risk populations and may lead to novel ways to prevent anaplasmosis.”

Dr. Elias and Ms. Prusinski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anaplasmosis prevalence in New York state nearly quadrupled statewide from 2010 to 2018, new research suggests, increasing by more than eightfold in the region surrounding Albany, the state capital. The proportion of ticks carrying Anaplasma phagocytophilum, the bacterium that causes the tick-borne disease, also increased during the study period. 

Although not as well-recognized as Lyme disease, anaplasmosis is one of the most common tickborne diseases in the United States. The bacterial disease is primarily transmitted to humans by the bites of blacklegged ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum, and often causes fever, headache, muscle aches, and chills. If treatment is delayed – or if a patient has underlying medical conditions – anaplasmosis can lead to difficulty breathing, bleeding problems, organ failure, and even death.

Since anaplasmosis become a nationally notifiable disease in 1999, cases have increased 16-fold in the United States, from 351 cases in 2000 to a high of 5,762 cases in 2017, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just eight states – Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and New York – make up 90% of reported cases.

“While Lyme disease remains the most common tick-borne illness reported in New York state, anaplasmosis continues to account for a growing proportion of our tick-borne disease cases each year,” Melissa Prusinski, a research scientist at the New York State Department of Health and author of the study, told this news organization in an email. “It is critically important to investigate the environmental and epidemiological drivers facilitating this increase to better understand why and how risk for this serious illness is increasing.” The results were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

For the study, investigators analyzed human anaplasmosis cases reported to the New York State Department of Health from 2010-2018. They also included data from tick collection and pathogen testing in order to determine whether the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks increased along with cases. All New York State counties were included in the study, apart from the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

There were 5,146 reported anaplasmosis cases in New York, with annual case numbers peaking at 1,112 in 2017. Researchers reported a dip in cases in 2018, a trend that was also seen nationally. Anaplasmosis incidence surged in the area surrounding Albany, increasing 8.4-fold from 4.3 cases per 100,000 people in 2010 to 36.3 cases per 100,000 persons in 2018.

Ms. Prusinski noted that the rapid increase in and around this inland hot spot is unlike the gradual spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses like babesiosis, which spreads from coastal areas both northward and westward across New York. The research team also found that the incidence of ticks infected with A. phagocytophilum nearly doubled statewide and increased fourfold – from 2.9% to 12% – between 2010 and 2018 in the Albany area.

This increase in cases could be the result, at least in part, of more robust testing efforts over time, said Susan Elias, PhD, of the Vector-Borne Disease Laboratory at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute in Scarborough. She was not involved with the recently published study. “The more you look for something, the more you find,” she said. For example, she added, a 602% surge in anaplasmosis cases in Maine from 2013-2017 occurred alongside a 10-fold increase in use of tick-borne disease panels that test for multiple pathogens.

Ms. Prusinski agreed that increased testing at least partially explains the surge of cases in New York, but she did not have data on how many tick-borne disease panels were used to diagnose cases in the state.

Proliferation of A. phagocytophilum in tick populations could also partially explain this dramatic increase in cases. With the suburbanization of America, “we have basically laid out a buffet” for ticks, Dr. Elias said. Patches of forest and yards create edge habitats where ticks, and the small mammals they feed on, thrive. “Then, once you have a large expanding blacklegged tick population, it makes it easier for the pathogens and carriers to amplify,” she added.

While the study did not differentiate between a variant of A. phagocytophilum associated with small mammals that causes illness and another found in white-tailed deer that is nonpathogenic, Ms. Prusinski suspects that the infectious variant is likely more prevalent and is circulating in animals and ticks in and around Albany. Research is ongoing to see if this could help explain the spread of disease in this anaplasmosis hotspot.

“The unique geographic pattern of anaplasmosis spread in New York state and elsewhere leads to many further questions about the vector ecology and epidemiology of this emerging tick-borne illness,” Ms. Prusinski added. “Learning all we can about this dynamic disease system will help us better identify at-risk populations and may lead to novel ways to prevent anaplasmosis.”

Dr. Elias and Ms. Prusinski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The current COVID-19 surge has brought new cases in children to their highest level since February, according to a new report.

New pediatric cases rose for the 6th straight week, with almost 94,000 reported for the week ending Aug. 5.

That weekly total was up by 31% over the previous week and by over 1,000% since late June, when the new-case figure was at its lowest point (8,447) since early in the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said. COVID-related deaths – 13 for the week – were also higher than at any time since March 2021.

Almost 4.3 million children have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is 14.3% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Children represented 15.0% of the new cases reported in those jurisdictions during the week ending Aug. 5, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.

Another measure that has been trending upward recently is vaccine initiation among 12- to 15-year-olds, although the latest weekly total is still well below the high of 1.4 million seen in May. First-time vaccinations reached almost 411,000 for the week of Aug. 3-9, marking the fourth consecutive increase in that age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on its COVID Data Tracker. Vaccinations also increased, although more modestly, for 16- and 17-year-olds in the most recent week.

Cumulative figures for children aged 12-17 show that almost 10.4 million have received at least one dose and that 7.7 million are fully vaccinated as of Aug. 9. By age group, 42.2% of those aged 12-15 have received at least one dose, and 30.4% have completed the vaccine regimen. Among those aged 16-17 years, 52.2% have gotten their first dose, and 41.4% are fully vaccinated, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

Looking at vaccination rates on the state level shows that only 20% of children aged 12-17 in Wyoming and 21% in Mississippi have gotten at least one dose as of Aug. 4, while Massachusetts is up to 68% and Vermont reports 70%. Rates for full vaccination range from 11% in Mississippi and Alabama to 61% in Vermont, based on an AAP analysis of CDC data, which is not available for Idaho.

[email protected]

The current COVID-19 surge has brought new cases in children to their highest level since February, according to a new report.

New pediatric cases rose for the 6th straight week, with almost 94,000 reported for the week ending Aug. 5.

That weekly total was up by 31% over the previous week and by over 1,000% since late June, when the new-case figure was at its lowest point (8,447) since early in the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said. COVID-related deaths – 13 for the week – were also higher than at any time since March 2021.

Almost 4.3 million children have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is 14.3% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Children represented 15.0% of the new cases reported in those jurisdictions during the week ending Aug. 5, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.

Another measure that has been trending upward recently is vaccine initiation among 12- to 15-year-olds, although the latest weekly total is still well below the high of 1.4 million seen in May. First-time vaccinations reached almost 411,000 for the week of Aug. 3-9, marking the fourth consecutive increase in that age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on its COVID Data Tracker. Vaccinations also increased, although more modestly, for 16- and 17-year-olds in the most recent week.

Cumulative figures for children aged 12-17 show that almost 10.4 million have received at least one dose and that 7.7 million are fully vaccinated as of Aug. 9. By age group, 42.2% of those aged 12-15 have received at least one dose, and 30.4% have completed the vaccine regimen. Among those aged 16-17 years, 52.2% have gotten their first dose, and 41.4% are fully vaccinated, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

Looking at vaccination rates on the state level shows that only 20% of children aged 12-17 in Wyoming and 21% in Mississippi have gotten at least one dose as of Aug. 4, while Massachusetts is up to 68% and Vermont reports 70%. Rates for full vaccination range from 11% in Mississippi and Alabama to 61% in Vermont, based on an AAP analysis of CDC data, which is not available for Idaho.

[email protected]

The current COVID-19 surge has brought new cases in children to their highest level since February, according to a new report.

New pediatric cases rose for the 6th straight week, with almost 94,000 reported for the week ending Aug. 5.

That weekly total was up by 31% over the previous week and by over 1,000% since late June, when the new-case figure was at its lowest point (8,447) since early in the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said. COVID-related deaths – 13 for the week – were also higher than at any time since March 2021.

Almost 4.3 million children have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is 14.3% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Children represented 15.0% of the new cases reported in those jurisdictions during the week ending Aug. 5, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report.

Another measure that has been trending upward recently is vaccine initiation among 12- to 15-year-olds, although the latest weekly total is still well below the high of 1.4 million seen in May. First-time vaccinations reached almost 411,000 for the week of Aug. 3-9, marking the fourth consecutive increase in that age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on its COVID Data Tracker. Vaccinations also increased, although more modestly, for 16- and 17-year-olds in the most recent week.

Cumulative figures for children aged 12-17 show that almost 10.4 million have received at least one dose and that 7.7 million are fully vaccinated as of Aug. 9. By age group, 42.2% of those aged 12-15 have received at least one dose, and 30.4% have completed the vaccine regimen. Among those aged 16-17 years, 52.2% have gotten their first dose, and 41.4% are fully vaccinated, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

Looking at vaccination rates on the state level shows that only 20% of children aged 12-17 in Wyoming and 21% in Mississippi have gotten at least one dose as of Aug. 4, while Massachusetts is up to 68% and Vermont reports 70%. Rates for full vaccination range from 11% in Mississippi and Alabama to 61% in Vermont, based on an AAP analysis of CDC data, which is not available for Idaho.

[email protected]

A vital aspect of expanding access and care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is broadening responsibility for this care across the health care system and other community resources, according to an article published online July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This expansion and decentralization of care are central to adopting the “new sexual health paradigm” recommended by a National Academies report that was published in March.

“STIs represent a sizable, longstanding, and growing public health challenge,” write Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, dean and professor at the Duke University School of Nursing and director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health (CLAFH) at Duke University, both in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues. Yet the limitations on the current STI workforce and limited federal funding and support for STI prevention and care mean it will take clinicians of all types from across the health care spectrum to meet the challenge, they explain.

“For too long, STI prevention and treatment has been perceived as the sole responsibility of a narrow workforce of specialized STI and HIV service providers,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthor, Marco Thimm-Kaiser, MPH, associate in research at Duke University and epidemiologist at CLAFH, wrote in an email.

“However, the resources allocated to this STI specialty workforce have diminished over time, along with decreasing investments in the broader U.S. public health infrastructure,” they continued. “At the same time – and in part due to this underinvestment – STI rates have soared, reaching a record high for the sixth year in a row in 2019.”

Those factors led to the National Academies report, which recommends moving “away from the traditional, disease-focused perspective on STIs in favor of a holistic perspective of sexual health as an integral component of overall health and well-being,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote to this news organization.

In their article, the authors review the limitations in the STI workforce, the implications of those limitations for the broader health care industry, and what it will take for STI and HIV specialists as well as regulators to ensure it’s possible to achieve the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies.

Currently, the biggest limitation is access to care, said Laura Mercer, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the ob.gyn. clerkship director at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. Dr. Mercer, who was not involved with the National Academies report or the analysis of it, said in an interview that it’s essential to emphasize “sexual health as a core element of routine primary and preventative care” to ensure it becomes more accessible to patients without the need to seek out specialty care.

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his colleagues drive home the importance of such a shift by noting that more than 200 million Americans live in counties with no practicing infectious disease physicians. The disparities are greatest in Southern states, which account for 40% of all reported STIs. The workforce shortage has continued to worsen alongside the deterioration of the clinical infrastructure supporting STI specialty services, the authors write.

Hence the need to expand accountability for care not only to primary-care physicians but also to nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and behavioral health practitioners. Doing so also requires normalizing sexual health services across health care professions.

“Prevention is a crucial first step” to this, Dr. Mercer said. “This is particularly important as we recall that almost half of new sexually transmitted infections occur in teenagers. Destigmatizing sexual health and sexual health education will also help encourage patients of all ages to request and accept testing.”

Further, with primary care practitioners managing most STI testing and treatment, subspecialists can focus primarily on complex or refractory cases, she added. Ways to help broaden care include developing point-of-care testing for STIs and improving the accuracy of existing testing, she said.

“The goal is to make routine sexual health services accessible in a wide range of settings, such as in primary care, at pharmacies, and in community-based settings, and to draw on a broader workforce for delivery of sexual health services,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview.

Kevin Ault, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that many medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long advocated incorporating sexual health into routine preventive care. He also noted that pharmacists have already become proactive in preventing STIs and could continue to do so.

“Vaccines for hepatitis and human papillomavirus are commonly available at pharmacies,” Dr. Ault said. He was not involved in the article by Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues or the original report. “Pharmacists could also fill a gap by administering injectable medications such as penicillin. States would have to approve changes in policy, but many states have already done this for expedited partner therapy.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser noted similar barriers that must be removed to broaden delivery of STI services.

“Unfortunately, too many highly trained health care providers who are well-positioned for the delivery of sexual health services face regulatory or administrative barriers to practice to the full scope of their training,” they wrote. “These barriers can have a particularly negative impact in medically underserved communities, where physician shortages are common and where novel, decentralized health care service delivery models that draw on nonphysician providers may hold the greatest promise.”

As more diverse health care practitioners take on these roles, ID and HIV specialists can provide their expertise in developing training and technical assistance to support generalists, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They can also aid in aligning “clinical training curricula, licensing criteria, and practice guidelines with routine delivery of sexual health services.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthors offer specific recommendations for professional training, licensing, and practice guidelines to help overcome the “insufficient knowledge, inadequate training, and absence of explicit protocols” that currently impede delivery of STI services in general practice settings.

Although the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies is ambitious, it’s also necessary, and “none of the recommendations are out of reach,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview. They pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how underresourced the health care workforce and infrastructure are and how great health care disparities are.

“There is momentum toward rebuilding the nation’s health and public health system in a more effective and efficient way,” they said, and many of the STI report’s recommendations “overlap with priorities for the broader health and public health system moving forward.”

Dr. Mercer also believes the recommendations are realistic, “but only the beginning,” she told this news organization. “Comprehensive sexual education to expand knowledge about STI prevention and public health campaigns to help destigmatize sexual health care in general will remain crucial,” she said.

Sexual education, expanded access, and destigmatizing sexual care are particularly important for reaching the populations most in need of care, such as adolescents and young adults, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender-minority youth.

“It cannot be overstated how important of a priority population adolescents and young adults are,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They noted that those aged 15-24 account for half of all STIs each year but represent only a quarter of the sexually active population. “Targeted efforts for STI prevention and treatment among adolescents and young adults are therefore essential for an overall successful strategy to address STIs and sexual health in the United States.”

The National Academies report was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Dr. Mercer, Dr. Ault, and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Health care.

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

A vital aspect of expanding access and care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is broadening responsibility for this care across the health care system and other community resources, according to an article published online July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This expansion and decentralization of care are central to adopting the “new sexual health paradigm” recommended by a National Academies report that was published in March.

“STIs represent a sizable, longstanding, and growing public health challenge,” write Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, dean and professor at the Duke University School of Nursing and director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health (CLAFH) at Duke University, both in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues. Yet the limitations on the current STI workforce and limited federal funding and support for STI prevention and care mean it will take clinicians of all types from across the health care spectrum to meet the challenge, they explain.

“For too long, STI prevention and treatment has been perceived as the sole responsibility of a narrow workforce of specialized STI and HIV service providers,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthor, Marco Thimm-Kaiser, MPH, associate in research at Duke University and epidemiologist at CLAFH, wrote in an email.

“However, the resources allocated to this STI specialty workforce have diminished over time, along with decreasing investments in the broader U.S. public health infrastructure,” they continued. “At the same time – and in part due to this underinvestment – STI rates have soared, reaching a record high for the sixth year in a row in 2019.”

Those factors led to the National Academies report, which recommends moving “away from the traditional, disease-focused perspective on STIs in favor of a holistic perspective of sexual health as an integral component of overall health and well-being,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote to this news organization.

In their article, the authors review the limitations in the STI workforce, the implications of those limitations for the broader health care industry, and what it will take for STI and HIV specialists as well as regulators to ensure it’s possible to achieve the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies.

Currently, the biggest limitation is access to care, said Laura Mercer, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the ob.gyn. clerkship director at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. Dr. Mercer, who was not involved with the National Academies report or the analysis of it, said in an interview that it’s essential to emphasize “sexual health as a core element of routine primary and preventative care” to ensure it becomes more accessible to patients without the need to seek out specialty care.

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his colleagues drive home the importance of such a shift by noting that more than 200 million Americans live in counties with no practicing infectious disease physicians. The disparities are greatest in Southern states, which account for 40% of all reported STIs. The workforce shortage has continued to worsen alongside the deterioration of the clinical infrastructure supporting STI specialty services, the authors write.

Hence the need to expand accountability for care not only to primary-care physicians but also to nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and behavioral health practitioners. Doing so also requires normalizing sexual health services across health care professions.

“Prevention is a crucial first step” to this, Dr. Mercer said. “This is particularly important as we recall that almost half of new sexually transmitted infections occur in teenagers. Destigmatizing sexual health and sexual health education will also help encourage patients of all ages to request and accept testing.”

Further, with primary care practitioners managing most STI testing and treatment, subspecialists can focus primarily on complex or refractory cases, she added. Ways to help broaden care include developing point-of-care testing for STIs and improving the accuracy of existing testing, she said.

“The goal is to make routine sexual health services accessible in a wide range of settings, such as in primary care, at pharmacies, and in community-based settings, and to draw on a broader workforce for delivery of sexual health services,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview.

Kevin Ault, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that many medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long advocated incorporating sexual health into routine preventive care. He also noted that pharmacists have already become proactive in preventing STIs and could continue to do so.

“Vaccines for hepatitis and human papillomavirus are commonly available at pharmacies,” Dr. Ault said. He was not involved in the article by Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues or the original report. “Pharmacists could also fill a gap by administering injectable medications such as penicillin. States would have to approve changes in policy, but many states have already done this for expedited partner therapy.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser noted similar barriers that must be removed to broaden delivery of STI services.

“Unfortunately, too many highly trained health care providers who are well-positioned for the delivery of sexual health services face regulatory or administrative barriers to practice to the full scope of their training,” they wrote. “These barriers can have a particularly negative impact in medically underserved communities, where physician shortages are common and where novel, decentralized health care service delivery models that draw on nonphysician providers may hold the greatest promise.”

As more diverse health care practitioners take on these roles, ID and HIV specialists can provide their expertise in developing training and technical assistance to support generalists, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They can also aid in aligning “clinical training curricula, licensing criteria, and practice guidelines with routine delivery of sexual health services.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthors offer specific recommendations for professional training, licensing, and practice guidelines to help overcome the “insufficient knowledge, inadequate training, and absence of explicit protocols” that currently impede delivery of STI services in general practice settings.

Although the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies is ambitious, it’s also necessary, and “none of the recommendations are out of reach,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview. They pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how underresourced the health care workforce and infrastructure are and how great health care disparities are.

“There is momentum toward rebuilding the nation’s health and public health system in a more effective and efficient way,” they said, and many of the STI report’s recommendations “overlap with priorities for the broader health and public health system moving forward.”

Dr. Mercer also believes the recommendations are realistic, “but only the beginning,” she told this news organization. “Comprehensive sexual education to expand knowledge about STI prevention and public health campaigns to help destigmatize sexual health care in general will remain crucial,” she said.

Sexual education, expanded access, and destigmatizing sexual care are particularly important for reaching the populations most in need of care, such as adolescents and young adults, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender-minority youth.

“It cannot be overstated how important of a priority population adolescents and young adults are,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They noted that those aged 15-24 account for half of all STIs each year but represent only a quarter of the sexually active population. “Targeted efforts for STI prevention and treatment among adolescents and young adults are therefore essential for an overall successful strategy to address STIs and sexual health in the United States.”

The National Academies report was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Dr. Mercer, Dr. Ault, and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Health care.

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

A vital aspect of expanding access and care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is broadening responsibility for this care across the health care system and other community resources, according to an article published online July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases. This expansion and decentralization of care are central to adopting the “new sexual health paradigm” recommended by a National Academies report that was published in March.

“STIs represent a sizable, longstanding, and growing public health challenge,” write Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, dean and professor at the Duke University School of Nursing and director of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health (CLAFH) at Duke University, both in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues. Yet the limitations on the current STI workforce and limited federal funding and support for STI prevention and care mean it will take clinicians of all types from across the health care spectrum to meet the challenge, they explain.

“For too long, STI prevention and treatment has been perceived as the sole responsibility of a narrow workforce of specialized STI and HIV service providers,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthor, Marco Thimm-Kaiser, MPH, associate in research at Duke University and epidemiologist at CLAFH, wrote in an email.

“However, the resources allocated to this STI specialty workforce have diminished over time, along with decreasing investments in the broader U.S. public health infrastructure,” they continued. “At the same time – and in part due to this underinvestment – STI rates have soared, reaching a record high for the sixth year in a row in 2019.”

Those factors led to the National Academies report, which recommends moving “away from the traditional, disease-focused perspective on STIs in favor of a holistic perspective of sexual health as an integral component of overall health and well-being,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote to this news organization.

In their article, the authors review the limitations in the STI workforce, the implications of those limitations for the broader health care industry, and what it will take for STI and HIV specialists as well as regulators to ensure it’s possible to achieve the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies.

Currently, the biggest limitation is access to care, said Laura Mercer, MD, MBA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the ob.gyn. clerkship director at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. Dr. Mercer, who was not involved with the National Academies report or the analysis of it, said in an interview that it’s essential to emphasize “sexual health as a core element of routine primary and preventative care” to ensure it becomes more accessible to patients without the need to seek out specialty care.

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his colleagues drive home the importance of such a shift by noting that more than 200 million Americans live in counties with no practicing infectious disease physicians. The disparities are greatest in Southern states, which account for 40% of all reported STIs. The workforce shortage has continued to worsen alongside the deterioration of the clinical infrastructure supporting STI specialty services, the authors write.

Hence the need to expand accountability for care not only to primary-care physicians but also to nurses, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and behavioral health practitioners. Doing so also requires normalizing sexual health services across health care professions.

“Prevention is a crucial first step” to this, Dr. Mercer said. “This is particularly important as we recall that almost half of new sexually transmitted infections occur in teenagers. Destigmatizing sexual health and sexual health education will also help encourage patients of all ages to request and accept testing.”

Further, with primary care practitioners managing most STI testing and treatment, subspecialists can focus primarily on complex or refractory cases, she added. Ways to help broaden care include developing point-of-care testing for STIs and improving the accuracy of existing testing, she said.

“The goal is to make routine sexual health services accessible in a wide range of settings, such as in primary care, at pharmacies, and in community-based settings, and to draw on a broader workforce for delivery of sexual health services,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview.

Kevin Ault, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that many medical organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long advocated incorporating sexual health into routine preventive care. He also noted that pharmacists have already become proactive in preventing STIs and could continue to do so.

“Vaccines for hepatitis and human papillomavirus are commonly available at pharmacies,” Dr. Ault said. He was not involved in the article by Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues or the original report. “Pharmacists could also fill a gap by administering injectable medications such as penicillin. States would have to approve changes in policy, but many states have already done this for expedited partner therapy.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser noted similar barriers that must be removed to broaden delivery of STI services.

“Unfortunately, too many highly trained health care providers who are well-positioned for the delivery of sexual health services face regulatory or administrative barriers to practice to the full scope of their training,” they wrote. “These barriers can have a particularly negative impact in medically underserved communities, where physician shortages are common and where novel, decentralized health care service delivery models that draw on nonphysician providers may hold the greatest promise.”

As more diverse health care practitioners take on these roles, ID and HIV specialists can provide their expertise in developing training and technical assistance to support generalists, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They can also aid in aligning “clinical training curricula, licensing criteria, and practice guidelines with routine delivery of sexual health services.”

Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and his coauthors offer specific recommendations for professional training, licensing, and practice guidelines to help overcome the “insufficient knowledge, inadequate training, and absence of explicit protocols” that currently impede delivery of STI services in general practice settings.

Although the paradigm shift recommended by the National Academies is ambitious, it’s also necessary, and “none of the recommendations are out of reach,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser said in an interview. They pointed out how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how underresourced the health care workforce and infrastructure are and how great health care disparities are.

“There is momentum toward rebuilding the nation’s health and public health system in a more effective and efficient way,” they said, and many of the STI report’s recommendations “overlap with priorities for the broader health and public health system moving forward.”

Dr. Mercer also believes the recommendations are realistic, “but only the beginning,” she told this news organization. “Comprehensive sexual education to expand knowledge about STI prevention and public health campaigns to help destigmatize sexual health care in general will remain crucial,” she said.

Sexual education, expanded access, and destigmatizing sexual care are particularly important for reaching the populations most in need of care, such as adolescents and young adults, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual, and gender-minority youth.

“It cannot be overstated how important of a priority population adolescents and young adults are,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser wrote. They noted that those aged 15-24 account for half of all STIs each year but represent only a quarter of the sexually active population. “Targeted efforts for STI prevention and treatment among adolescents and young adults are therefore essential for an overall successful strategy to address STIs and sexual health in the United States.”

The National Academies report was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Dr. Mercer, Dr. Ault, and Mr. Thimm-Kaiser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Health care.

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

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

“From a public health standpoint, I think we have an evolving situation,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a moderated session with Lee Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“From a public health standpoint, I think we have an evolving situation,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a moderated session with Lee Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“From a public health standpoint, I think we have an evolving situation,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a moderated session with Lee Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

A combination of two monoclonal antibodies given as a subcutaneous injection prevented COVID-19 in patients at a high risk of infection due to household exposure, according to results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published online August 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The cocktail of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) reduced participants’ relative risk of infection by 72%, compared with placebo within the first week. After the first week, risk reduction increased to 93%.

“Long after you would be exposed by your household, there is an enduring effect that prevents you from community spread,” said David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was a site investigator for the trial but not a study author.

Participants were enrolled within 96 hours after someone in their household tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV subcutaneously or a placebo. Based on serologic testing, study participants showed no evidence of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age of participants was 42.9, but 45% were male teenagers (ages 12-17).

In the group that received REGEN-COV, 11 out of 753 participants developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared with 59 out of 752 participants who received placebo. The relative risk reduction for the study’s 4-week period was 81.4% (P < .001). Of the participants that did develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection, those that received REGEN-COV were less likely to be symptomatic. Asymptomatic infections developed in 25 participants who received REGEN-COV versus 48 in the placebo group. The relative risk of developing any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was reduced by 66.4% with REGEN-COV (P < .001).

Among the patients who were symptomatic, symptoms subsided within a median of 1.2 weeks for the group that received REGEN-COV, 2 weeks earlier than the placebo group. These patients also had a shorter duration of a high viral load (>104 copies/mL). Few adverse events were reported in the treatment or placebo groups. Monoclonal antibodies “seem to be incredibly safe,” Dr. Wohl said.

“These monoclonal antibodies have proven they can reduce the viral replication in the nose,” said study author Myron Cohen, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

The Food and Drug Administration first granted REGEN-COV emergency use authorization (EUA) in November 2020 for use in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who were also at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19. At that time, the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies was delivered by a single intravenous infusion.

In January, Regeneron first announced the success of this trial of the subcutaneous injection for exposed household contacts based on early results, and in June of 2021, the FDA expanded the EUA to include a subcutaneous delivery when IV is not feasible. On July 30, the EUA was expanded again to include prophylactic use in exposed patients based on these trial results.

The U.S. government has purchased approximately 1.5 million doses of REGEN-COV from Regeneron and has agreed to make the treatments free of charge to patients.

But despite being free, available, and backed by promising data, monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic answer to COVID-19 still hasn’t really taken off. “The problem is, it first requires knowledge and awareness,” Dr. Wohl said. “A lot [of people] don’t know this exists. To be honest, vaccination has taken up all the oxygen in the room.”

Dr. Cohen agreed. One reason for the slow uptake may be because the drug supply is owned by the government and not a pharmaceutical company. There hasn’t been a typical marketing push to make physicians and consumers aware. Additionally, “the logistics are daunting,” Dr. Cohen said. The office spaces where many physicians care for patients “often aren’t appropriate for patients who think they have SARS-CoV-2.”

“Right now, there’s not a mechanism” to administer the drug to people who could benefit from it, Dr. Wohl said. Eligible patients are either immunocompromised and unlikely to mount a sufficient immune response with vaccination, or not fully vaccinated. They should have been exposed to an infected individual or have a high likelihood of exposure due to where they live, such as in a prison or nursing home. Local doctors are unlikely to be the primary administrators of the drug, Dr. Wohl added. “How do we operationalize this for people who fit the criteria?”

There’s also an issue of timing. REGEN-COV is most effective when given early, Dr. Cohen said. “[Monoclonal antibodies] really only work well in the replication phase.” Many patients who would be eligible delay care until they’ve had symptoms for several days, when REGEN-COV would no longer have the desired effect.

Eventually, Dr. Wohl suspects demand will increase when people realize REGEN-COV can help those with COVID-19 and those who have been exposed. But before then, “we do have to think about how to integrate this into a workflow people can access without being confused.”

The trial was done before there was widespread vaccination, so it’s unclear what the results mean for people who have been vaccinated. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Wohl said there are ongoing conversations about whether monoclonal antibodies could be complementary to vaccination and if there’s potential for continued monthly use of these therapies.

Cohen and Wohl reported no relevant financial relationships. The trial was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, and the COVID-19 Prevention Network.

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

A combination of two monoclonal antibodies given as a subcutaneous injection prevented COVID-19 in patients at a high risk of infection due to household exposure, according to results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published online August 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The cocktail of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) reduced participants’ relative risk of infection by 72%, compared with placebo within the first week. After the first week, risk reduction increased to 93%.

“Long after you would be exposed by your household, there is an enduring effect that prevents you from community spread,” said David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was a site investigator for the trial but not a study author.

Participants were enrolled within 96 hours after someone in their household tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV subcutaneously or a placebo. Based on serologic testing, study participants showed no evidence of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age of participants was 42.9, but 45% were male teenagers (ages 12-17).

In the group that received REGEN-COV, 11 out of 753 participants developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared with 59 out of 752 participants who received placebo. The relative risk reduction for the study’s 4-week period was 81.4% (P < .001). Of the participants that did develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection, those that received REGEN-COV were less likely to be symptomatic. Asymptomatic infections developed in 25 participants who received REGEN-COV versus 48 in the placebo group. The relative risk of developing any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was reduced by 66.4% with REGEN-COV (P < .001).

Among the patients who were symptomatic, symptoms subsided within a median of 1.2 weeks for the group that received REGEN-COV, 2 weeks earlier than the placebo group. These patients also had a shorter duration of a high viral load (>104 copies/mL). Few adverse events were reported in the treatment or placebo groups. Monoclonal antibodies “seem to be incredibly safe,” Dr. Wohl said.

“These monoclonal antibodies have proven they can reduce the viral replication in the nose,” said study author Myron Cohen, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

The Food and Drug Administration first granted REGEN-COV emergency use authorization (EUA) in November 2020 for use in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who were also at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19. At that time, the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies was delivered by a single intravenous infusion.

In January, Regeneron first announced the success of this trial of the subcutaneous injection for exposed household contacts based on early results, and in June of 2021, the FDA expanded the EUA to include a subcutaneous delivery when IV is not feasible. On July 30, the EUA was expanded again to include prophylactic use in exposed patients based on these trial results.

The U.S. government has purchased approximately 1.5 million doses of REGEN-COV from Regeneron and has agreed to make the treatments free of charge to patients.

But despite being free, available, and backed by promising data, monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic answer to COVID-19 still hasn’t really taken off. “The problem is, it first requires knowledge and awareness,” Dr. Wohl said. “A lot [of people] don’t know this exists. To be honest, vaccination has taken up all the oxygen in the room.”

Dr. Cohen agreed. One reason for the slow uptake may be because the drug supply is owned by the government and not a pharmaceutical company. There hasn’t been a typical marketing push to make physicians and consumers aware. Additionally, “the logistics are daunting,” Dr. Cohen said. The office spaces where many physicians care for patients “often aren’t appropriate for patients who think they have SARS-CoV-2.”

“Right now, there’s not a mechanism” to administer the drug to people who could benefit from it, Dr. Wohl said. Eligible patients are either immunocompromised and unlikely to mount a sufficient immune response with vaccination, or not fully vaccinated. They should have been exposed to an infected individual or have a high likelihood of exposure due to where they live, such as in a prison or nursing home. Local doctors are unlikely to be the primary administrators of the drug, Dr. Wohl added. “How do we operationalize this for people who fit the criteria?”

There’s also an issue of timing. REGEN-COV is most effective when given early, Dr. Cohen said. “[Monoclonal antibodies] really only work well in the replication phase.” Many patients who would be eligible delay care until they’ve had symptoms for several days, when REGEN-COV would no longer have the desired effect.

Eventually, Dr. Wohl suspects demand will increase when people realize REGEN-COV can help those with COVID-19 and those who have been exposed. But before then, “we do have to think about how to integrate this into a workflow people can access without being confused.”

The trial was done before there was widespread vaccination, so it’s unclear what the results mean for people who have been vaccinated. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Wohl said there are ongoing conversations about whether monoclonal antibodies could be complementary to vaccination and if there’s potential for continued monthly use of these therapies.

Cohen and Wohl reported no relevant financial relationships. The trial was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, and the COVID-19 Prevention Network.

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

A combination of two monoclonal antibodies given as a subcutaneous injection prevented COVID-19 in patients at a high risk of infection due to household exposure, according to results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published online August 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The cocktail of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) reduced participants’ relative risk of infection by 72%, compared with placebo within the first week. After the first week, risk reduction increased to 93%.

“Long after you would be exposed by your household, there is an enduring effect that prevents you from community spread,” said David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was a site investigator for the trial but not a study author.

Participants were enrolled within 96 hours after someone in their household tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV subcutaneously or a placebo. Based on serologic testing, study participants showed no evidence of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age of participants was 42.9, but 45% were male teenagers (ages 12-17).

In the group that received REGEN-COV, 11 out of 753 participants developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared with 59 out of 752 participants who received placebo. The relative risk reduction for the study’s 4-week period was 81.4% (P < .001). Of the participants that did develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection, those that received REGEN-COV were less likely to be symptomatic. Asymptomatic infections developed in 25 participants who received REGEN-COV versus 48 in the placebo group. The relative risk of developing any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was reduced by 66.4% with REGEN-COV (P < .001).

Among the patients who were symptomatic, symptoms subsided within a median of 1.2 weeks for the group that received REGEN-COV, 2 weeks earlier than the placebo group. These patients also had a shorter duration of a high viral load (>104 copies/mL). Few adverse events were reported in the treatment or placebo groups. Monoclonal antibodies “seem to be incredibly safe,” Dr. Wohl said.

“These monoclonal antibodies have proven they can reduce the viral replication in the nose,” said study author Myron Cohen, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

The Food and Drug Administration first granted REGEN-COV emergency use authorization (EUA) in November 2020 for use in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who were also at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19. At that time, the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies was delivered by a single intravenous infusion.

In January, Regeneron first announced the success of this trial of the subcutaneous injection for exposed household contacts based on early results, and in June of 2021, the FDA expanded the EUA to include a subcutaneous delivery when IV is not feasible. On July 30, the EUA was expanded again to include prophylactic use in exposed patients based on these trial results.

The U.S. government has purchased approximately 1.5 million doses of REGEN-COV from Regeneron and has agreed to make the treatments free of charge to patients.

But despite being free, available, and backed by promising data, monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic answer to COVID-19 still hasn’t really taken off. “The problem is, it first requires knowledge and awareness,” Dr. Wohl said. “A lot [of people] don’t know this exists. To be honest, vaccination has taken up all the oxygen in the room.”

Dr. Cohen agreed. One reason for the slow uptake may be because the drug supply is owned by the government and not a pharmaceutical company. There hasn’t been a typical marketing push to make physicians and consumers aware. Additionally, “the logistics are daunting,” Dr. Cohen said. The office spaces where many physicians care for patients “often aren’t appropriate for patients who think they have SARS-CoV-2.”

“Right now, there’s not a mechanism” to administer the drug to people who could benefit from it, Dr. Wohl said. Eligible patients are either immunocompromised and unlikely to mount a sufficient immune response with vaccination, or not fully vaccinated. They should have been exposed to an infected individual or have a high likelihood of exposure due to where they live, such as in a prison or nursing home. Local doctors are unlikely to be the primary administrators of the drug, Dr. Wohl added. “How do we operationalize this for people who fit the criteria?”

There’s also an issue of timing. REGEN-COV is most effective when given early, Dr. Cohen said. “[Monoclonal antibodies] really only work well in the replication phase.” Many patients who would be eligible delay care until they’ve had symptoms for several days, when REGEN-COV would no longer have the desired effect.

Eventually, Dr. Wohl suspects demand will increase when people realize REGEN-COV can help those with COVID-19 and those who have been exposed. But before then, “we do have to think about how to integrate this into a workflow people can access without being confused.”

The trial was done before there was widespread vaccination, so it’s unclear what the results mean for people who have been vaccinated. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Wohl said there are ongoing conversations about whether monoclonal antibodies could be complementary to vaccination and if there’s potential for continued monthly use of these therapies.

Cohen and Wohl reported no relevant financial relationships. The trial was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, and the COVID-19 Prevention Network.

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

Moderna says neutralizing antibodies generated by its COVID-19 vaccine against three variants of the virus that causes the disease waned substantially 6 months after the second dose.

Because of this, the company expects an increase in breakthrough infections with a need for boosters before winter.

In an experiment, a 50-mg dose of the vaccine, given as a third shot, boosted levels of antibodies in 20 previously vaccinated people by 32 times against the Beta variant, by 44 times against the Gamma variant, and by 42 times against Delta.

The new data was presented in an earnings call to investors and is based on a small study that hasn’t yet been published in medical literature.

The company also said its vaccine remained highly effective at preventing severe COVID outcomes through 6 months.

Last week, Pfizer released early data suggesting a similar drop in protection from its vaccine. The company also showed a third dose substantially boosted protection, including against the Delta variant.

The new results come just 1 day after the World Health Organization implored wealthy nations to hold off on third doses until more of the world’s population could get a first dose.

More than 80% of the 4 billion vaccine doses given around the world have been distributed to high-income countries.

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

Moderna says neutralizing antibodies generated by its COVID-19 vaccine against three variants of the virus that causes the disease waned substantially 6 months after the second dose.

Because of this, the company expects an increase in breakthrough infections with a need for boosters before winter.

In an experiment, a 50-mg dose of the vaccine, given as a third shot, boosted levels of antibodies in 20 previously vaccinated people by 32 times against the Beta variant, by 44 times against the Gamma variant, and by 42 times against Delta.

The new data was presented in an earnings call to investors and is based on a small study that hasn’t yet been published in medical literature.

The company also said its vaccine remained highly effective at preventing severe COVID outcomes through 6 months.

Last week, Pfizer released early data suggesting a similar drop in protection from its vaccine. The company also showed a third dose substantially boosted protection, including against the Delta variant.

The new results come just 1 day after the World Health Organization implored wealthy nations to hold off on third doses until more of the world’s population could get a first dose.

More than 80% of the 4 billion vaccine doses given around the world have been distributed to high-income countries.

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

Moderna says neutralizing antibodies generated by its COVID-19 vaccine against three variants of the virus that causes the disease waned substantially 6 months after the second dose.

Because of this, the company expects an increase in breakthrough infections with a need for boosters before winter.

In an experiment, a 50-mg dose of the vaccine, given as a third shot, boosted levels of antibodies in 20 previously vaccinated people by 32 times against the Beta variant, by 44 times against the Gamma variant, and by 42 times against Delta.

The new data was presented in an earnings call to investors and is based on a small study that hasn’t yet been published in medical literature.

The company also said its vaccine remained highly effective at preventing severe COVID outcomes through 6 months.

Last week, Pfizer released early data suggesting a similar drop in protection from its vaccine. The company also showed a third dose substantially boosted protection, including against the Delta variant.

The new results come just 1 day after the World Health Organization implored wealthy nations to hold off on third doses until more of the world’s population could get a first dose.

More than 80% of the 4 billion vaccine doses given around the world have been distributed to high-income countries.

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