Infectious Diseases

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities are at high risk for mortality and hospital readmission, according to Nicholas Colucciello, MD, and few interventions have been shown to reduce these adverse outcomes.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition And Recovery (STAR) program versus Usual Care (UC) alone on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Colucciello, a primary care physician in Toledo, Ohio, presented data suggesting that the STAR intervention program appears beneficial for patients discharged to post-acute care facilities and may lead to decreased 30-day mortality and readmission rates.
 

Study of IMPACTS

The study was a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial, focusing only on those patients who were discharged to a post-acute care facility. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a post-sepsis transition program using nurse navigators to deliver best-practice post-sepsis care during and after hospitalization, Dr. Colucciello said. The interventions included comorbidity monitoring, medication review, evaluation for new impairments/symptoms, and goals of care assessment.

“Over one-third of sepsis survivors are discharged to post-acute care as they are not stable enough to go home,” said Dr. Colucciello, and among these patients there is a high risk for mortality and hospital readmission.

Dr. Colucciello and his colleagues randomly assigned patients hospitalized with sepsis and deemed high risk for post-discharge readmission or mortality to either STAR or usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission and mortality, which was assessed from the electronic health record and social security death master file.

Of the 175 (21%) IMPACTS patients discharged to post-acute care facilities, 143 (82%) were sent to skilled nursing facilities, and 12 (7%) were sent to long-term acute care hospitals. The remaining 20 patients (11%) were sent to inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 88 of these patients received the STAR intervention and 87 received usual care.
 

Suggestive results

The study showed that the composite primary endpoint occurred in 26 (30.6%) patients in the usual care group versus 18 (20.7%) patients in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –9.9% (95% CI, –22.9 to 3.1), according to Dr. Colucciello. As individual factors, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.2% in the UC group, compared with 5.8% in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –2.5% (95% CI, –10.1 to 5.0) and the 30-day all-cause readmission was 27.1% in the UC group, compared with 17.2% in the STAR program, for a risk difference of –9.8% (95% CI, –22.2 to 2.5). On average, patients receiving UC experienced 26.5 hospital-free days, compared with 27.4 hospital-free days in the STAR group, he added.

The biggest limitation of the study was the fact that it was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences, despite the suggestive results, said Dr. Colucciello. However, he added: “This secondary analysis of the IMPACTS randomized trial found that the STAR intervention may decrease 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis patients discharged to a post-acute care facility,” he concluded.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities are at high risk for mortality and hospital readmission, according to Nicholas Colucciello, MD, and few interventions have been shown to reduce these adverse outcomes.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition And Recovery (STAR) program versus Usual Care (UC) alone on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Colucciello, a primary care physician in Toledo, Ohio, presented data suggesting that the STAR intervention program appears beneficial for patients discharged to post-acute care facilities and may lead to decreased 30-day mortality and readmission rates.
 

Study of IMPACTS

The study was a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial, focusing only on those patients who were discharged to a post-acute care facility. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a post-sepsis transition program using nurse navigators to deliver best-practice post-sepsis care during and after hospitalization, Dr. Colucciello said. The interventions included comorbidity monitoring, medication review, evaluation for new impairments/symptoms, and goals of care assessment.

“Over one-third of sepsis survivors are discharged to post-acute care as they are not stable enough to go home,” said Dr. Colucciello, and among these patients there is a high risk for mortality and hospital readmission.

Dr. Colucciello and his colleagues randomly assigned patients hospitalized with sepsis and deemed high risk for post-discharge readmission or mortality to either STAR or usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission and mortality, which was assessed from the electronic health record and social security death master file.

Of the 175 (21%) IMPACTS patients discharged to post-acute care facilities, 143 (82%) were sent to skilled nursing facilities, and 12 (7%) were sent to long-term acute care hospitals. The remaining 20 patients (11%) were sent to inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 88 of these patients received the STAR intervention and 87 received usual care.
 

Suggestive results

The study showed that the composite primary endpoint occurred in 26 (30.6%) patients in the usual care group versus 18 (20.7%) patients in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –9.9% (95% CI, –22.9 to 3.1), according to Dr. Colucciello. As individual factors, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.2% in the UC group, compared with 5.8% in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –2.5% (95% CI, –10.1 to 5.0) and the 30-day all-cause readmission was 27.1% in the UC group, compared with 17.2% in the STAR program, for a risk difference of –9.8% (95% CI, –22.2 to 2.5). On average, patients receiving UC experienced 26.5 hospital-free days, compared with 27.4 hospital-free days in the STAR group, he added.

The biggest limitation of the study was the fact that it was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences, despite the suggestive results, said Dr. Colucciello. However, he added: “This secondary analysis of the IMPACTS randomized trial found that the STAR intervention may decrease 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis patients discharged to a post-acute care facility,” he concluded.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care facilities are at high risk for mortality and hospital readmission, according to Nicholas Colucciello, MD, and few interventions have been shown to reduce these adverse outcomes.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues compared the effects of a Sepsis Transition And Recovery (STAR) program versus Usual Care (UC) alone on 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among sepsis survivors discharged to post-acute care.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Colucciello, a primary care physician in Toledo, Ohio, presented data suggesting that the STAR intervention program appears beneficial for patients discharged to post-acute care facilities and may lead to decreased 30-day mortality and readmission rates.
 

Study of IMPACTS

The study was a secondary analysis of patients from the IMPACTS (Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis) randomized clinical trial, focusing only on those patients who were discharged to a post-acute care facility. IMPACTS evaluated the effectiveness of STAR, a post-sepsis transition program using nurse navigators to deliver best-practice post-sepsis care during and after hospitalization, Dr. Colucciello said. The interventions included comorbidity monitoring, medication review, evaluation for new impairments/symptoms, and goals of care assessment.

“Over one-third of sepsis survivors are discharged to post-acute care as they are not stable enough to go home,” said Dr. Colucciello, and among these patients there is a high risk for mortality and hospital readmission.

Dr. Colucciello and his colleagues randomly assigned patients hospitalized with sepsis and deemed high risk for post-discharge readmission or mortality to either STAR or usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission and mortality, which was assessed from the electronic health record and social security death master file.

Of the 175 (21%) IMPACTS patients discharged to post-acute care facilities, 143 (82%) were sent to skilled nursing facilities, and 12 (7%) were sent to long-term acute care hospitals. The remaining 20 patients (11%) were sent to inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 88 of these patients received the STAR intervention and 87 received usual care.
 

Suggestive results

The study showed that the composite primary endpoint occurred in 26 (30.6%) patients in the usual care group versus 18 (20.7%) patients in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –9.9% (95% CI, –22.9 to 3.1), according to Dr. Colucciello. As individual factors, 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.2% in the UC group, compared with 5.8% in the STAR group, for a risk difference of –2.5% (95% CI, –10.1 to 5.0) and the 30-day all-cause readmission was 27.1% in the UC group, compared with 17.2% in the STAR program, for a risk difference of –9.8% (95% CI, –22.2 to 2.5). On average, patients receiving UC experienced 26.5 hospital-free days, compared with 27.4 hospital-free days in the STAR group, he added.

The biggest limitation of the study was the fact that it was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences, despite the suggestive results, said Dr. Colucciello. However, he added: “This secondary analysis of the IMPACTS randomized trial found that the STAR intervention may decrease 30-day mortality and readmission rates among sepsis patients discharged to a post-acute care facility,” he concluded.

Dr. Colucciello and colleagues report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a sepsis predictor made little difference in time to antibiotic administration for septic patients in the emergency department, based on data from more than 200 patients.

“One of the big problems with sepsis is the lack of current tools for early and accurate diagnoses,” said Daniel Burgin, MD, an internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The EPIC Sepsis Model (ESM) was designed to help facilitate earlier detection of sepsis and speed time to the start of antibiotics, but its effectiveness has not been well studied, Dr. Burgin said.

In Dr. Burgin’s facility, the ESM is mainly driven by systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and blood pressure and is calculated every 15 minutes; the system triggers a best-practice advisory if needed, with an alert that sepsis may be suspected.

To assess the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, Dr. Burgin and colleagues reviewed data from 226 adult patients who presented to a single emergency department between February 2019 and June 2019. All patients presented with at least two criteria for SIRS. An ESM threshold of 6 was designed to trigger a set of orders to guide providers on a treatment plan that included antibiotics.

The researchers compared times to the ordering and the administration of antibiotics for patients with ESM scores of 6 or higher vs. less than 6 within 6 hours of triage in the ED. A total of 109 patients (48.2%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of these, 71 (74.5%) had ESM less than 6 and 38 (40.6%) had ESM of 6 or higher. The times from triage to antibiotics ordered and administered was significantly less in patients with ESM of 6 or higher (90.5 minutes vs. 131.5 minutes; 136 minutes vs. 186 minutes, respectively; P = .011 for both).

A total of 188 patients were evaluated for infection, and 86 met Sepsis-2 criteria based on physician chart review. These patients were significantly more likely than those not meeting the Sepsis-2 criteria to receive antibiotics in the ED (76.7% vs. 22.8%; P <.001).

Another 21 patients met criteria for Sepsis-3 based on a physician panel. Although all 21 received antibiotics, 5 did not receive them within 6 hours of triage in the ED, Dr. Burgin said. The median times to ordering and administration of antibiotics for Sepsis-3 patients with an ESM of 6 or higher were –5 and 38.5 (interquartile range), respectively.

“We hope that the ESM would prompt providers to start the order [for antibiotics],” Dr. Burgin said in his presentation. However, the researchers found no consistent patterns, and in many cases the ESM alerts occurred after the orders had been initiated, he noted.

The study findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; the implementation of the EPIC tool is hospital specific, said Dr. Burgin. However, the results suggest that “the ESM trigger is not improving the time to ordering of antibiotics for septic patients, and we question the utility of this tool in its current state,” he said.

“While this research proved useful in assessing the impact of ESM on time to antibiotics, more research is needed to understand how to operationalize predictive analytics,” Dr. Burgin said of the study findings. “The goal is to find the balance between early identification of sepsis and timely antimicrobial therapy and the potential harm of overalerting treatment teams.”

The study was supported in part by Cytovale, a sepsis diagnostics company. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Cytovale. Dr. Burgin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A commentary published across four dermatology journals in September urges dermatologists and their medical societies to “engage more meaningfully” on climate change issues, “moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.

Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.

“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”

Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.

The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
 

‘A threat multiplier’

The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.

In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.

However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”

Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.

In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.

Petmal/iStock/Getty Images

In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.

But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.

Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.


 

AAD actions

In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”

Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”

The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.

The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.

And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
 

‘Be part of the solution’

In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.

In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”

Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”

Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”

Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.

A commentary published across four dermatology journals in September urges dermatologists and their medical societies to “engage more meaningfully” on climate change issues, “moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.

Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.

“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”

Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.

The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
 

‘A threat multiplier’

The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.

In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.

However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”

Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.

In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.

Petmal/iStock/Getty Images

In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.

But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.

Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.


 

AAD actions

In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”

Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”

The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.

The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.

And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
 

‘Be part of the solution’

In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.

In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”

Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”

Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”

Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.

A commentary published across four dermatology journals in September urges dermatologists and their medical societies to “engage more meaningfully” on climate change issues, “moving beyond merely discussing skin-related impacts” and toward prioritizing both patient and planetary health.

Dermatologists must make emissions-saving changes in everyday practice, for instance, and the specialty must enlist key stakeholders in public health, nonprofits, and industry – that is, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies – in finding solutions to help mitigate and adapt to climate change, wrote Eva Rawlings Parker, MD, and Markus D. Boos, MD, PhD.

“We have an ethical imperative to act,” they wrote. “The time is now for dermatologists and our medical societies to collectively rise to meet this crisis.”

Their commentary was published online in the International Journal of Dermatology , Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, British Journal of Dermatology, and Pediatric Dermatology.

In an interview, Dr. Parker, assistant professor of dermatology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said that she and Dr. Boos, associate professor in the division of dermatology and department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, were motivated to write the editorial upon finding that dermatology was not represented among more than 230 medical journals that published an editorial in September 2021 calling for emergency action to limit global warming and protect health. In addition to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, the copublishing journals represented numerous specialties, from nursing and pediatrics, to cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology.

The editorial was not published in any dermatology journals, Dr. Parker said. “It was incredibly disappointing for me along with many of my colleagues who advocate for climate action because we realized it was a missed opportunity for dermatology to align with other medical specialties and be on the forefront of leading climate action to protect health.”
 

‘A threat multiplier’

The impact of climate change on skin disease is “an incredibly important part of our conversation as dermatologists because many cutaneous diseases are climate sensitive and we’re often seeing the effects of climate change every day in our clinical practices,” Dr. Parker said.

In fact, the impact on skin disease needs to be explored much further through more robust research funding, so that dermatology can better understand not only the incidence and severity of climate-induced changes in skin diseases – including and beyond atopic dermatitis, acne, and psoriasis – but also the mechanisms and pathophysiology involved, she said.

However, the impacts are much broader, she and Dr. Boos, a pediatric dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, maintain in their commentary. “An essential concept to broker among dermatologists is that the impacts of climate change extend well beyond skin disease by also placing broad pressure” on infrastructure, the economy, financial markets, global supply chains, food and water insecurity, and more, they wrote, noting the deep inequities of climate change.

Climate change is a “threat multiplier for public health, equity, and health systems,” the commentary says. “The confluence of these climate-related pressures should sound alarm bells as they place enormous jeopardy on the practice of dermatology across all scales and regions.”

Health care is among the most carbon-intensive service sectors worldwide, contributing to almost 5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the commentary says. And nationally, of the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from the United States, the health care sector contributes 10%, Dr. Parker said in the interview, referring to a 2016 report.

In addition, according to a 2019 report, the United States is the top contributor to health care’s global climate footprint, contributing 27% of health care’s global emissions, Dr. Parker noted.

Petmal/iStock/Getty Images

In their commentary, she and Dr. Boos wrote that individually and practice wide, dermatologists can impact decarbonization through measures such as virtual attendance at medical meetings and greater utilization of telehealth services. Reductions in carbon emissions were demonstrated for virtual isotretinoin follow-up visits in a recent study, and these savings could be extrapolated to other routine follow-up visits for conditions such as rosacea, monitoring of biologics in patients with well-controlled disease, and postoperative wound checks, they said.

But when it comes to measures such as significantly reducing packaging and waste and “curating supply chains to make them more sustainable,” it is medical societies that have the “larger voice and broader relationship with the pharmaceutical industry” and with medical supply manufacturers and distributors, Dr. Parker explained in the interview, noting the potential for reducing the extensive amount of packaging used for drug samples.

Dr. Parker cochairs the American Academy of Dermatology’s Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, which was established several years ago, and Dr. Boos is a member of the group’s executive committee.


 

AAD actions

In its 2018 Position Statement on Climate and Health, the American Academy of Dermatology resolved to raise awareness of the effects of climate change on the skin and educate patients about this, and to “work with other medical societies in ongoing and future efforts to educate the public and mitigate the effects of climate change on global health.”

Asked about the commentary’s call for more collaboration with industry and other stakeholders – and the impact that organized dermatology can have on planetary health – Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the AAD, said in an email that the AAD is “first and foremost an organization focused on providing gold-standard educational resources for dermatologists.”

The academy recognizes that “there are many dermatologic consequences of climate change that will increasingly affect our patients and challenge our membership,” and it has provided education on climate change in forums such as articles, podcasts, and sessions at AAD meetings, said Dr. Kaufmann, clinical professor in the department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Regarding collaboration with other societies, he said that the AAD’s “focus to date has been on how to provide our members with educational resources to understand and prepare for how climate change may impact their practices and the dermatologic health of their patients,” he said.

The AAD has also sought to address its own carbon footprint and improve sustainability of its operations, including taking steps to reduce plastic and paper waste at its educational events, and to eliminate plastic waste associated with mailing resources like its member magazine, Dr. Kaufmann noted.

And in keeping with the Academy pledge – also articulated in the 2018 position statement – to support and facilitate dermatologists’ efforts to decrease their carbon footprint “in a cost effective (or cost-saving) manner,” Dr. Kaufmann said that the AAD has been offering a program called My Green Doctor as a free benefit of membership.
 

‘Be part of the solution’

In an interview, Mary E. Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said her practice did an audit of their surgical area and found ways to increase the use of paper-packaged gauze – and decrease use of gauze in hard plastic containers – and otherwise decrease the amount of disposables, all of which take “huge amounts of resources” to create.

In the process, “we found significant savings,” she said. “Little things can turn out, in the long run, to be big things.”

Asked about the commentary, Dr. Maloney, who is involved in the AAD’s climate change resource group, said “the message is that yes, we need to be aware of the diseases affected by climate change. But our greater imperative is to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as far as doing things that affect climate change.”

Organized dermatology needs to broaden its advocacy, she said. “I don’t want us to stop advocating for things for our patients, but I do want us to start advocating for the world ... If we don’t try to [mitigate] climate change, we won’t have patients to advocate for.”

Dr. Parker, an associate editor of The Journal of Climate Change and Health, and Dr. Boos declared no conflicts of interest and no funding source for their commentary. Dr. Maloney said she has no conflicts of interest.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

Worldwide and across many diseases, vaccines have been transformative in reducing mortality—an effect that has been sustained with vaccines that protect against COVID-19.¹ Since the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in late 2019, the pace of scientific investigation into the virus and the disease—made possible by unprecedented funding, infrastructure, and public and private partnerships—has been explosive. The result? A vast body of clinical and laboratory evidence about the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which quickly became widely available.^2-4

In this article, we review the basic underlying virology of SARS-CoV-2; the biotechnological basis of vaccines against COVID-19 that are available in the United States; and recommendations on how to provide those vaccines to your patients. Additional guidance for your practice appears in a select online bibliography, “COVID-19 vaccination resources.”

SARS-CoV-2 virology

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus approaches the host cell, normal cell proteases on the surface membrane cause a change in the shape of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. That spike protein conformation change allows the virus to avoid detection by the host’s immune system because its receptor-binding site is effectively hidden until just before entry into the cell.^5,6 This process is analogous to a so-called lock-and-key method of entry, in which the key (ie, spike protein conformation) is hidden by the virus until the moment it is needed, thereby minimizing exposure of viral contents to the cell. As the virus spreads through the population, it adapts to improve infectivity and transmissibility and to evade developing immunity.⁷

After the spike protein changes shape, it attaches to an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor on the host cell, allowing the virus to enter that cell. ACE-2 receptors are located in numerous human tissues: nasopharynx, lung, gastrointestinal tract, heart, thymus, lymph nodes, bone marrow, brain, arterial and venous endothelial cells, and testes.⁵ The variety of tissues that contain ACE-2 receptors explains the many sites of infection and location of symptoms with which SARS-CoV-2 infection can manifest, in addition to the respiratory system.

Basic mRNA vaccine immunology

Although messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines seem novel, they have been in development for more than 30 years.⁸

mRNA encodes the protein for the antigen of interest and is delivered to the host muscle tissue. There, mRNA is translated into the antigen, which stimulates an immune response. Host enzymes then rapidly degrade the mRNA in the vaccine, and it is quickly eliminated from the host.

mRNA vaccines are attractive vaccine candidates, particularly in their application to emerging infectious diseases, for several reasons:

• They are nonreplicating.
• They do not integrate into the host genome.
• They are highly effective.
• They can produce antibody and cellular immunity.
• They can be produced (and modified) quickly on a large scale without having to grow the virus in eggs.

Continue to: Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

 

 

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

Two vaccines (from Pfizer-BioNTech [Comirnaty] and from Moderna [Spikevax]) are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–­approved for COVID-19; both utilize mRNA technology. Two other vaccines, which do not use mRNA technology, have an FDA emergency use authorization (from Janssen Biotech, of Johnson & Johnson [Janssen ­COVID-19 Vaccine] and from Novavax [Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted]).⁹

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. The mRNA of these vaccines encodes the entire spike protein in its pre-fusion conformation, which is the antigen that is replicated in the host, inducing an immune response.^10-12 (Recall the earlier lock-and-key analogy: This conformation structure ingeniously replicates the exposed 3-dimensional key to the host’s immune system.)

The Janssen vaccine utilizes a viral vector (a nonreplicating adenovirus that functions as carrier) to deliver its message to the host for antigen production (again, the spike protein) and an immune response.

The Novavax vaccine uses a recombinant nanoparticle protein composed of the full-length spike protein.^13,14 In this review, we focus on the 2 available mRNA vaccines, (1) given their FDA-authorized status and (2) because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations indicate a preference for mRNA vaccination over viral-vectored vaccination. However, we also address key points about the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine.

Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines

The first study to document the safety and efficacy of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) was published just 12 months after the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰ This initial trial demonstrated a 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-­confirmed COVID-19 at 3-month follow-up.¹⁰ Clinical trial data on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have continued to be published since that first landmark trial.

Continue to: Data from trials...

Although mRNA vaccines seem novel, they have been in development for more than 30 years.

Data from trials in Israel that became available early in 2021 showed that, in mRNA-vaccinated adults, mechanical ventilation rates declined strikingly, particularly in patients > 70 years of age.^15,16 This finding was corroborated by data from a surveillance study of multiple US hospitals, which showed that mRNA vaccines were > 90% effective in preventing hospitalization in adults > 65 years of age.¹⁷

Data published in May 2021 showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 94% effective in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalization.¹⁸ During the end of the Delta wave of the pandemic and the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, unvaccinated people were 5 times as likely to be infected as vaccinated people.¹⁹

In March 2022, data from 21 US medical centers in 18 states demonstrated that adults who had received 3 doses of the vaccine were 94% less likely to be intubated or die than those who were unvaccinated.¹⁶ A July 2022 retrospective cohort study of 231,037 subjects showed that the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or for stroke after COVID-19 infection was reduced by more than half in fully vaccinated (ie, 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine or the viral vector [Janssen/Johnson & Johnson] vaccine) subjects, compared to unvaccinated subjects.²⁰ The efficacy of the vaccines is summarized in TABLE 1.^21-24

Even in patients who have natural infection, several studies have shown that ­COVID-19 vaccination after natural infection increases the level and durability of immune response to infection and reinfection and improves clinical outcomes.^9,20,25,26 In summary, published literature shows that (1) mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection and (2) they augment immunity achieved by infection with circulating virus.

Breakthrough infection. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are associated with breakthrough infection (ie, infections in fully ­vaccinated people), a phenomenon influenced by the predominant viral variant circulating, the level of vaccine uptake in the studied population, and the timing of vaccination.^27,28 Nevertheless, vaccinated people who experience breakthrough infection are much less likely to be hospitalized and die compared to those who are unvaccinated, and vaccination with an mRNA vaccine is more effective than immunity acquired from natural infection.²⁹

Continue to: Vaccine adverse effects

Vaccine adverse effects: Common, rare, myths

Both early mRNA vaccine trials reported common minor adverse effects after vaccination (TABLE 1^21-24). These included redness and soreness at the injection site, fatigue, myalgias, fever, and nausea, and tended to be more common after the second dose. These adverse effects are similar to common adverse effects seen with other vaccines. Counseling information about adverse effects can be found on the CDC website.^a

Two uncommon but serious adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination are myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA vaccination and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), which occurs only with the Janssen vaccine.^30,31

Myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males (12 to 18 years), and mostly after a second dose of vaccine, was reported in May 2021. Since then, several studies have shown that the risk of myocarditis is slightly higher in males < 40 years of age, with a predicted case rate ranging from 1 to 10 excess cases for every 1 million patients vaccinated.^30,32 This risk must be balanced against the rate of myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A large study in the United States demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis for those who contract COVID-19 is 16 times higher than it is for those who are disease free.³³ Observational safety data from April 2022 showed that men ages 18 to 29 years had 7 to 8 times the risk of heart complications after natural infection, compared to men of those ages who had been vaccinated.³⁴ In this study of 40 US health care systems, the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis in that age group ranged from 55 to 100 cases for every 100,000 people after infection and from 6 to 15 cases for every 100,000 people after a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.³⁴

Even in patients who have natural infection, vaccination increases the level and durability of immune response to infection and reinfection and improves outcomes.

A risk–benefit analysis conducted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) ultimately supported the conclusions that (1) the risk of myocarditis secondary to vaccination is small and (2) clear benefits of preventing infection, hospitalization, death, and continued transmission outweigh that risk.³⁵ Study of this question, utilizing vaccine safety and reporting systems around the world, has continued.

Continue to: There is emerging evidence...

There is emerging evidence that extending the interval between the 2 doses of vaccine decreases the risk of myocarditis, particularly in male adolescents.³⁶ That evidence ultimately led the CDC to recommend that it might be optimal that an extended interval (ie, waiting 8 weeks between the first and second dose of vaccine), in particular for males ages 12 to 39 years, could be beneficial in decreasing the risk of myocarditis.

TTS. A population risk–benefit analysis of TTS was conducted by ACIP while use of the Janssen vaccine was paused in the United States in December 2021.³⁶ The analysis determined that, although the risk of TTS was largely in younger women (18 to 49 years; 7 cases for every 1 million vaccine doses administered), benefits of the vaccine in preventing death, hospitalization, and a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)—particularly if vaccination was delayed or there was a high rate of community infection—clearly outweighed risks. (The CDC estimated an incidence of 2 cases of TTS with more than 3 million doses of Janssen vaccine administered; assuming moderate transmission kinetics, more than 3500 hospitalizations and more than 350 deaths were prevented by vaccination.³⁶) Ultimately, after the CDC analysis was released, vaccination utilizing the Janssen product resumed; however, the CDC offered the caveat that the Janssen vaccine should be used only in specific situations³⁶ (eg, when there has been a severe reaction to mRNA vaccine or when access to mRNA or recombinant nanoparticle vaccine is limited).

Myths surrounding vaccination

Myth #1: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines contain tissue from aborted fetuses. This myth, which emerged during development of the vaccines, is often a conflation of the use of embryonic cell lines obtained decades ago to produce vaccines (a common practice—not only for vaccines but common pharmaceuticals and foods).³⁷ There are no fetal cells or tissue in any SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the vaccines have been endorsed by several faith organizations.³⁸

Myth #2: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can cause sterility in men and women. This myth originated from a report in early December 2020 seeking to link a similarity in a protein involved in placental–uterine binding and a portion of the receptor-binding domain antigen produced by the vaccine.³⁹ No studies support this myth; COVID-19 vaccines are recommended in pregnancy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.^40,41

Myth #3: mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines alter a recipient’s DNA. mRNA vaccines are broken down by cellular enzymes. They cannot be integrated into the host genome.⁸

Continue to: Boosters and vaccine mix-and-match

 

 

Boosters and vaccine mix-and-match

As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, with new variants of concern emerging, it has also become clear that immunity wanes. In July 2021, the first report was published after a cluster of breakthrough infections occurred in a town in Massachusetts.⁴² There was no recommendation, at the time, for a booster; the Delta variant was the predominant circulating strain. In this outbreak, there were 469 cases, 74% of which were in people who had received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine.⁴² Five patients were hospitalized; none died.⁴² A key takeaway from this outbreak was that vaccination prevented death, even in the face of fairly wide breakthrough infection.

Vaccination with an mRNA vaccine is more effective than immunity acquired from natural infection.

Newer data show that, although vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was greater than 90% for the first 2 months after a third dose, it waned to 78% by 4 months.⁴³ Published data, combined with real-world experience, show that boosters provide additional reduction in the risk of death and hospitalization. This has led to a recommendation that all patients ≥ 5 years of age receive a booster.^19,26,43-48 The CDC now recommends that people who are ages 12 years and older receive a bivalent booster (containing both wild-type and Omicron-variant antigens) ≥ 2 months after their most recent booster or completed series.

Future booster recommendations will consider the durability of the immune response over time (measured against the original immunizing virus) and the mutation rate of the virus.⁴⁹

Given the limited supply of vaccine early in the pandemic, and the potential for future limitations, there was early interest in studying so-called mix-and-match SARS-CoV-2 vaccination—that is, receiving one product as a first series and then a different product as a booster, also known as heterologous booster vaccination. Although it is preferred that the 2 doses of the primary series be of the same vaccine product, studies that have examined this question support heterologous boosting as an acceptable approach to protective immunity⁵⁰ (TABLE 2⁵¹).

Vaccination in special populations

Three groups of patients have unique host characteristics that are important to consider when providing COVID-19 vaccination in your practice: pregnant patients, children, and patients in the broad category of “immunocompromised status.”

Continue to: Pregnant patients

Pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to be hospitalized and have a higher risk of a stay in the ICU and need for mechanical ventilation. In a study of the course of illness in symptomatic pregnant patients who were hospitalized, 16.2% were admitted to an ICU and 8.5% were mechanically ventilated.⁵² CDC observational data have consistently supported the finding that (1) pregnant patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at increased risk of preterm labor and (2) their newborns are at increased risk of low birth weight and requiring admission to the neonatal ICU.⁵³

A systematic review of 46 studies in pregnant and lactating patients showed no increased risk of adverse effects from ­COVID-19 vaccination.⁵⁴ Furthermore, data from multiple studies demonstrate that immunoglobulin G antibodies cross the placenta to protect the infant at birth (ie, are found in umbilical cord blood and neonatal blood) and are found in breast milk. The precise kinetics and durability of these antibodies are unknown.

Pregnant patients were initially excluded from vaccine trials (although there were some patients ultimately found to be pregnant, or who became pregnant, during the trial). Careful examination of vaccine safety and efficacy data has supported the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) recommendation that all pregnant patients be vaccinated. Furthermore, EBCOG recommends vaccination during the period of breastfeeding.⁵⁵

Children. A major challenge during the pandemic has been to understand (1) the effect that infection with SARS-CoV-2 has on children and (2) the role of children in transmission of the virus. Although most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms, a few require hospitalization and mechanical ventilation and some develop life-threatening multisystem inflammatory syndrome.⁵⁶ In a large, retrospective study of more than 12,000 children with COVID-19, 5.3% required hospitalization and almost 20% of that subset were admitted to the ICU.⁵⁷

Various hypotheses have been put forward to describe and explain the differences in disease expression between children and adults. These include:

• the absence of comorbidities often seen in adults
• evidence that pediatric patients might have reduced expression of ACE-2
• a more active T-cell response in infected children, due to an active thymus.⁵⁶

Continue to: Although the number of children affected...

A large US study demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis for those who contract COVID-19 is 16 times higher than it is for those who are disease free.

Although the number of children affected by severe SARS-CoV-2 infection is less than the number of adults, there have been important trends observed in infection and hospitalization as different variants have arisen.⁵⁸ The Delta and Omicron variants have both been associated with a disturbing trend in the rate of hospitalization of pediatric patients, particularly from birth to 4 years—patients who were ineligible for vaccination at the time of the study.⁵⁸ Ultimately, these data, combined with multiple studies of vaccine effectiveness in this age group, have led to an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in pediatric populations and a recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics that all children ages 6 months and older be vaccinated.^59,60

Immunocompromised patients. Patients broadly classified as immunocompromised have raised unique concerns. These patients have conditions such as malignancy, primary or secondary immunodeficiency, diabetes, and autoimmune disease; are taking certain classes of medication; or are of older age.⁶¹ Early in the pandemic, data showed that immunocompromised hosts could shed virus longer than hosts with an intact immune system—adding to their risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and of viral adaptation for immune escape.⁶² Antibody response to vaccination was also less robust in this group.

There are limited data that demonstrate a short-lived reduction in risk of infection (in that study, Omicron was the prominent variant) with a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine.⁶³ Based on these data and FDA approval, the CDC recommends (1) an additional third primary dose and (2) a second booster for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those ages 50 years or older, a second booster is now required for their vaccination to be considered up to date.^b

Predictions (or, why is a COVID-19 vaccine important?)

What does the future hold for our struggle with COVID-19? Perhaps we can learn lessons from the study of the 4 known seasonal coronaviruses, which cause the common cold and circulate annually.⁶⁴ First, only relative immunity is produced after infection with a seasonal coronavirus.⁶⁴ Studies of antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses seem to suggest that, although antibody titers remain high, correlation with decreased infection is lacking.⁶⁵ Second, a dominant strain or 2 emerges each season, probably as a result of genetic variation and selective pressure for immune escape from neutralizing antibodies or cellular immunity.

Boosters provide additional reduction in the risk of death and hospitalization, which led to a recommendation that all patients ≥ 5 years of age receive a booster.

The complex relationship among competing immune response duration, emergence of viral immune escape, increasing viral transmissibility, and societal viral source control (through vaccination, masking, distancing, testing, isolation, and treatment) widens the confidence bounds on our estimates of what the future holds. Late in 2020, the CDC began reporting wastewater surveillance data as a method for monitoring, and predicting changes in, community spread.⁶⁶ During Spring 2022, the CDC reported an increase in detection of SARS-CoV-2 from a third of wastewater sampling sites around the United States. This observation coincided with (1) appearance of still more transmissible BA.2 and, later, BA.2.12.1 variants and (2) general relaxing of masking and social distancing guidelines, following the decline of the Omicron variant.

Continue to: At approximately that time...

At approximately that time, application to the FDA for a fourth shot (or a second booster) by Pfizer-BioNTech had been approved for adults > 50 years of age, at > 4 months after their previous vaccination.⁵⁷ In view of warning signs from wastewater surveillance, priorities for vaccination should be to:

• increase uptake in the hesitant
• get boosters to the eligible
• prepare to tackle either seasonal or sporadic recurrence of COVID-19—whichever scenario the future brings.

As an example of how these priorities have been put into action, in September 2022, the FDA approved, and the CDC recommended, new bivalent boosters for everyone ≥ 12 years of age (Pfizer-BioNTech) or for all those ≥ 18 years of age (Moderna), to be administered ≥ 2 months after receipt of their most recent booster or primary series.

^a www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html

^b Visit www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations-us.html for more guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for immunocompromised patients.

CORRESPONDENCE
John L. Kiley, MD, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234; [email protected]

Worldwide and across many diseases, vaccines have been transformative in reducing mortality—an effect that has been sustained with vaccines that protect against COVID-19.¹ Since the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in late 2019, the pace of scientific investigation into the virus and the disease—made possible by unprecedented funding, infrastructure, and public and private partnerships—has been explosive. The result? A vast body of clinical and laboratory evidence about the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which quickly became widely available.^2-4

In this article, we review the basic underlying virology of SARS-CoV-2; the biotechnological basis of vaccines against COVID-19 that are available in the United States; and recommendations on how to provide those vaccines to your patients. Additional guidance for your practice appears in a select online bibliography, “COVID-19 vaccination resources.”

SARS-CoV-2 virology

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus approaches the host cell, normal cell proteases on the surface membrane cause a change in the shape of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. That spike protein conformation change allows the virus to avoid detection by the host’s immune system because its receptor-binding site is effectively hidden until just before entry into the cell.^5,6 This process is analogous to a so-called lock-and-key method of entry, in which the key (ie, spike protein conformation) is hidden by the virus until the moment it is needed, thereby minimizing exposure of viral contents to the cell. As the virus spreads through the population, it adapts to improve infectivity and transmissibility and to evade developing immunity.⁷

After the spike protein changes shape, it attaches to an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor on the host cell, allowing the virus to enter that cell. ACE-2 receptors are located in numerous human tissues: nasopharynx, lung, gastrointestinal tract, heart, thymus, lymph nodes, bone marrow, brain, arterial and venous endothelial cells, and testes.⁵ The variety of tissues that contain ACE-2 receptors explains the many sites of infection and location of symptoms with which SARS-CoV-2 infection can manifest, in addition to the respiratory system.

Basic mRNA vaccine immunology

Although messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines seem novel, they have been in development for more than 30 years.⁸

mRNA encodes the protein for the antigen of interest and is delivered to the host muscle tissue. There, mRNA is translated into the antigen, which stimulates an immune response. Host enzymes then rapidly degrade the mRNA in the vaccine, and it is quickly eliminated from the host.

mRNA vaccines are attractive vaccine candidates, particularly in their application to emerging infectious diseases, for several reasons:

• They are nonreplicating.
• They do not integrate into the host genome.
• They are highly effective.
• They can produce antibody and cellular immunity.
• They can be produced (and modified) quickly on a large scale without having to grow the virus in eggs.

Continue to: Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

 

 

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

Two vaccines (from Pfizer-BioNTech [Comirnaty] and from Moderna [Spikevax]) are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–­approved for COVID-19; both utilize mRNA technology. Two other vaccines, which do not use mRNA technology, have an FDA emergency use authorization (from Janssen Biotech, of Johnson & Johnson [Janssen ­COVID-19 Vaccine] and from Novavax [Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted]).⁹

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. The mRNA of these vaccines encodes the entire spike protein in its pre-fusion conformation, which is the antigen that is replicated in the host, inducing an immune response.^10-12 (Recall the earlier lock-and-key analogy: This conformation structure ingeniously replicates the exposed 3-dimensional key to the host’s immune system.)

The Janssen vaccine utilizes a viral vector (a nonreplicating adenovirus that functions as carrier) to deliver its message to the host for antigen production (again, the spike protein) and an immune response.

The Novavax vaccine uses a recombinant nanoparticle protein composed of the full-length spike protein.^13,14 In this review, we focus on the 2 available mRNA vaccines, (1) given their FDA-authorized status and (2) because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations indicate a preference for mRNA vaccination over viral-vectored vaccination. However, we also address key points about the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine.

Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines

The first study to document the safety and efficacy of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) was published just 12 months after the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰ This initial trial demonstrated a 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-­confirmed COVID-19 at 3-month follow-up.¹⁰ Clinical trial data on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have continued to be published since that first landmark trial.

Continue to: Data from trials...

Although mRNA vaccines seem novel, they have been in development for more than 30 years.

Data from trials in Israel that became available early in 2021 showed that, in mRNA-vaccinated adults, mechanical ventilation rates declined strikingly, particularly in patients > 70 years of age.^15,16 This finding was corroborated by data from a surveillance study of multiple US hospitals, which showed that mRNA vaccines were > 90% effective in preventing hospitalization in adults > 65 years of age.¹⁷

Data published in May 2021 showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 94% effective in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalization.¹⁸ During the end of the Delta wave of the pandemic and the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, unvaccinated people were 5 times as likely to be infected as vaccinated people.¹⁹

In March 2022, data from 21 US medical centers in 18 states demonstrated that adults who had received 3 doses of the vaccine were 94% less likely to be intubated or die than those who were unvaccinated.¹⁶ A July 2022 retrospective cohort study of 231,037 subjects showed that the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or for stroke after COVID-19 infection was reduced by more than half in fully vaccinated (ie, 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine or the viral vector [Janssen/Johnson & Johnson] vaccine) subjects, compared to unvaccinated subjects.²⁰ The efficacy of the vaccines is summarized in TABLE 1.^21-24

Even in patients who have natural infection, several studies have shown that ­COVID-19 vaccination after natural infection increases the level and durability of immune response to infection and reinfection and improves clinical outcomes.^9,20,25,26 In summary, published literature shows that (1) mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection and (2) they augment immunity achieved by infection with circulating virus.

Breakthrough infection. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are associated with breakthrough infection (ie, infections in fully ­vaccinated people), a phenomenon influenced by the predominant viral variant circulating, the level of vaccine uptake in the studied population, and the timing of vaccination.^27,28 Nevertheless, vaccinated people who experience breakthrough infection are much less likely to be hospitalized and die compared to those who are unvaccinated, and vaccination with an mRNA vaccine is more effective than immunity acquired from natural infection.²⁹

Continue to: Vaccine adverse effects

Vaccine adverse effects: Common, rare, myths

Both early mRNA vaccine trials reported common minor adverse effects after vaccination (TABLE 1^21-24). These included redness and soreness at the injection site, fatigue, myalgias, fever, and nausea, and tended to be more common after the second dose. These adverse effects are similar to common adverse effects seen with other vaccines. Counseling information about adverse effects can be found on the CDC website.^a

Two uncommon but serious adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination are myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA vaccination and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), which occurs only with the Janssen vaccine.^30,31

Myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males (12 to 18 years), and mostly after a second dose of vaccine, was reported in May 2021. Since then, several studies have shown that the risk of myocarditis is slightly higher in males < 40 years of age, with a predicted case rate ranging from 1 to 10 excess cases for every 1 million patients vaccinated.^30,32 This risk must be balanced against the rate of myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A large study in the United States demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis for those who contract COVID-19 is 16 times higher than it is for those who are disease free.³³ Observational safety data from April 2022 showed that men ages 18 to 29 years had 7 to 8 times the risk of heart complications after natural infection, compared to men of those ages who had been vaccinated.³⁴ In this study of 40 US health care systems, the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis in that age group ranged from 55 to 100 cases for every 100,000 people after infection and from 6 to 15 cases for every 100,000 people after a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.³⁴

Even in patients who have natural infection, vaccination increases the level and durability of immune response to infection and reinfection and improves outcomes.

A risk–benefit analysis conducted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) ultimately supported the conclusions that (1) the risk of myocarditis secondary to vaccination is small and (2) clear benefits of preventing infection, hospitalization, death, and continued transmission outweigh that risk.³⁵ Study of this question, utilizing vaccine safety and reporting systems around the world, has continued.

Continue to: There is emerging evidence...

There is emerging evidence that extending the interval between the 2 doses of vaccine decreases the risk of myocarditis, particularly in male adolescents.³⁶ That evidence ultimately led the CDC to recommend that it might be optimal that an extended interval (ie, waiting 8 weeks between the first and second dose of vaccine), in particular for males ages 12 to 39 years, could be beneficial in decreasing the risk of myocarditis.

TTS. A population risk–benefit analysis of TTS was conducted by ACIP while use of the Janssen vaccine was paused in the United States in December 2021.³⁶ The analysis determined that, although the risk of TTS was largely in younger women (18 to 49 years; 7 cases for every 1 million vaccine doses administered), benefits of the vaccine in preventing death, hospitalization, and a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)—particularly if vaccination was delayed or there was a high rate of community infection—clearly outweighed risks. (The CDC estimated an incidence of 2 cases of TTS with more than 3 million doses of Janssen vaccine administered; assuming moderate transmission kinetics, more than 3500 hospitalizations and more than 350 deaths were prevented by vaccination.³⁶) Ultimately, after the CDC analysis was released, vaccination utilizing the Janssen product resumed; however, the CDC offered the caveat that the Janssen vaccine should be used only in specific situations³⁶ (eg, when there has been a severe reaction to mRNA vaccine or when access to mRNA or recombinant nanoparticle vaccine is limited).

Myths surrounding vaccination

Myth #1: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines contain tissue from aborted fetuses. This myth, which emerged during development of the vaccines, is often a conflation of the use of embryonic cell lines obtained decades ago to produce vaccines (a common practice—not only for vaccines but common pharmaceuticals and foods).³⁷ There are no fetal cells or tissue in any SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the vaccines have been endorsed by several faith organizations.³⁸

Myth #2: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can cause sterility in men and women. This myth originated from a report in early December 2020 seeking to link a similarity in a protein involved in placental–uterine binding and a portion of the receptor-binding domain antigen produced by the vaccine.³⁹ No studies support this myth; COVID-19 vaccines are recommended in pregnancy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.^40,41

Myth #3: mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines alter a recipient’s DNA. mRNA vaccines are broken down by cellular enzymes. They cannot be integrated into the host genome.⁸

Continue to: Boosters and vaccine mix-and-match

 

 

Boosters and vaccine mix-and-match

As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, with new variants of concern emerging, it has also become clear that immunity wanes. In July 2021, the first report was published after a cluster of breakthrough infections occurred in a town in Massachusetts.⁴² There was no recommendation, at the time, for a booster; the Delta variant was the predominant circulating strain. In this outbreak, there were 469 cases, 74% of which were in people who had received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine.⁴² Five patients were hospitalized; none died.⁴² A key takeaway from this outbreak was that vaccination prevented death, even in the face of fairly wide breakthrough infection.

Vaccination with an mRNA vaccine is more effective than immunity acquired from natural infection.

Newer data show that, although vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was greater than 90% for the first 2 months after a third dose, it waned to 78% by 4 months.⁴³ Published data, combined with real-world experience, show that boosters provide additional reduction in the risk of death and hospitalization. This has led to a recommendation that all patients ≥ 5 years of age receive a booster.^19,26,43-48 The CDC now recommends that people who are ages 12 years and older receive a bivalent booster (containing both wild-type and Omicron-variant antigens) ≥ 2 months after their most recent booster or completed series.

Future booster recommendations will consider the durability of the immune response over time (measured against the original immunizing virus) and the mutation rate of the virus.⁴⁹

Given the limited supply of vaccine early in the pandemic, and the potential for future limitations, there was early interest in studying so-called mix-and-match SARS-CoV-2 vaccination—that is, receiving one product as a first series and then a different product as a booster, also known as heterologous booster vaccination. Although it is preferred that the 2 doses of the primary series be of the same vaccine product, studies that have examined this question support heterologous boosting as an acceptable approach to protective immunity⁵⁰ (TABLE 2⁵¹).

Vaccination in special populations

Three groups of patients have unique host characteristics that are important to consider when providing COVID-19 vaccination in your practice: pregnant patients, children, and patients in the broad category of “immunocompromised status.”

Continue to: Pregnant patients

Pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to be hospitalized and have a higher risk of a stay in the ICU and need for mechanical ventilation. In a study of the course of illness in symptomatic pregnant patients who were hospitalized, 16.2% were admitted to an ICU and 8.5% were mechanically ventilated.⁵² CDC observational data have consistently supported the finding that (1) pregnant patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at increased risk of preterm labor and (2) their newborns are at increased risk of low birth weight and requiring admission to the neonatal ICU.⁵³

A systematic review of 46 studies in pregnant and lactating patients showed no increased risk of adverse effects from ­COVID-19 vaccination.⁵⁴ Furthermore, data from multiple studies demonstrate that immunoglobulin G antibodies cross the placenta to protect the infant at birth (ie, are found in umbilical cord blood and neonatal blood) and are found in breast milk. The precise kinetics and durability of these antibodies are unknown.

Pregnant patients were initially excluded from vaccine trials (although there were some patients ultimately found to be pregnant, or who became pregnant, during the trial). Careful examination of vaccine safety and efficacy data has supported the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) recommendation that all pregnant patients be vaccinated. Furthermore, EBCOG recommends vaccination during the period of breastfeeding.⁵⁵

Children. A major challenge during the pandemic has been to understand (1) the effect that infection with SARS-CoV-2 has on children and (2) the role of children in transmission of the virus. Although most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms, a few require hospitalization and mechanical ventilation and some develop life-threatening multisystem inflammatory syndrome.⁵⁶ In a large, retrospective study of more than 12,000 children with COVID-19, 5.3% required hospitalization and almost 20% of that subset were admitted to the ICU.⁵⁷

Various hypotheses have been put forward to describe and explain the differences in disease expression between children and adults. These include:

• the absence of comorbidities often seen in adults
• evidence that pediatric patients might have reduced expression of ACE-2
• a more active T-cell response in infected children, due to an active thymus.⁵⁶

Continue to: Although the number of children affected...

A large US study demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis for those who contract COVID-19 is 16 times higher than it is for those who are disease free.

Although the number of children affected by severe SARS-CoV-2 infection is less than the number of adults, there have been important trends observed in infection and hospitalization as different variants have arisen.⁵⁸ The Delta and Omicron variants have both been associated with a disturbing trend in the rate of hospitalization of pediatric patients, particularly from birth to 4 years—patients who were ineligible for vaccination at the time of the study.⁵⁸ Ultimately, these data, combined with multiple studies of vaccine effectiveness in this age group, have led to an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in pediatric populations and a recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics that all children ages 6 months and older be vaccinated.^59,60

Immunocompromised patients. Patients broadly classified as immunocompromised have raised unique concerns. These patients have conditions such as malignancy, primary or secondary immunodeficiency, diabetes, and autoimmune disease; are taking certain classes of medication; or are of older age.⁶¹ Early in the pandemic, data showed that immunocompromised hosts could shed virus longer than hosts with an intact immune system—adding to their risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and of viral adaptation for immune escape.⁶² Antibody response to vaccination was also less robust in this group.

There are limited data that demonstrate a short-lived reduction in risk of infection (in that study, Omicron was the prominent variant) with a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine.⁶³ Based on these data and FDA approval, the CDC recommends (1) an additional third primary dose and (2) a second booster for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those ages 50 years or older, a second booster is now required for their vaccination to be considered up to date.^b

Predictions (or, why is a COVID-19 vaccine important?)

What does the future hold for our struggle with COVID-19? Perhaps we can learn lessons from the study of the 4 known seasonal coronaviruses, which cause the common cold and circulate annually.⁶⁴ First, only relative immunity is produced after infection with a seasonal coronavirus.⁶⁴ Studies of antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses seem to suggest that, although antibody titers remain high, correlation with decreased infection is lacking.⁶⁵ Second, a dominant strain or 2 emerges each season, probably as a result of genetic variation and selective pressure for immune escape from neutralizing antibodies or cellular immunity.

Boosters provide additional reduction in the risk of death and hospitalization, which led to a recommendation that all patients ≥ 5 years of age receive a booster.

The complex relationship among competing immune response duration, emergence of viral immune escape, increasing viral transmissibility, and societal viral source control (through vaccination, masking, distancing, testing, isolation, and treatment) widens the confidence bounds on our estimates of what the future holds. Late in 2020, the CDC began reporting wastewater surveillance data as a method for monitoring, and predicting changes in, community spread.⁶⁶ During Spring 2022, the CDC reported an increase in detection of SARS-CoV-2 from a third of wastewater sampling sites around the United States. This observation coincided with (1) appearance of still more transmissible BA.2 and, later, BA.2.12.1 variants and (2) general relaxing of masking and social distancing guidelines, following the decline of the Omicron variant.

Continue to: At approximately that time...

At approximately that time, application to the FDA for a fourth shot (or a second booster) by Pfizer-BioNTech had been approved for adults > 50 years of age, at > 4 months after their previous vaccination.⁵⁷ In view of warning signs from wastewater surveillance, priorities for vaccination should be to:

• increase uptake in the hesitant
• get boosters to the eligible
• prepare to tackle either seasonal or sporadic recurrence of COVID-19—whichever scenario the future brings.

As an example of how these priorities have been put into action, in September 2022, the FDA approved, and the CDC recommended, new bivalent boosters for everyone ≥ 12 years of age (Pfizer-BioNTech) or for all those ≥ 18 years of age (Moderna), to be administered ≥ 2 months after receipt of their most recent booster or primary series.

^a www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html

^b Visit www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations-us.html for more guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for immunocompromised patients.

CORRESPONDENCE
John L. Kiley, MD, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234; [email protected]

Worldwide and across many diseases, vaccines have been transformative in reducing mortality—an effect that has been sustained with vaccines that protect against COVID-19.¹ Since the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in late 2019, the pace of scientific investigation into the virus and the disease—made possible by unprecedented funding, infrastructure, and public and private partnerships—has been explosive. The result? A vast body of clinical and laboratory evidence about the safety and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which quickly became widely available.^2-4

In this article, we review the basic underlying virology of SARS-CoV-2; the biotechnological basis of vaccines against COVID-19 that are available in the United States; and recommendations on how to provide those vaccines to your patients. Additional guidance for your practice appears in a select online bibliography, “COVID-19 vaccination resources.”

SARS-CoV-2 virology

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus approaches the host cell, normal cell proteases on the surface membrane cause a change in the shape of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. That spike protein conformation change allows the virus to avoid detection by the host’s immune system because its receptor-binding site is effectively hidden until just before entry into the cell.^5,6 This process is analogous to a so-called lock-and-key method of entry, in which the key (ie, spike protein conformation) is hidden by the virus until the moment it is needed, thereby minimizing exposure of viral contents to the cell. As the virus spreads through the population, it adapts to improve infectivity and transmissibility and to evade developing immunity.⁷

After the spike protein changes shape, it attaches to an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor on the host cell, allowing the virus to enter that cell. ACE-2 receptors are located in numerous human tissues: nasopharynx, lung, gastrointestinal tract, heart, thymus, lymph nodes, bone marrow, brain, arterial and venous endothelial cells, and testes.⁵ The variety of tissues that contain ACE-2 receptors explains the many sites of infection and location of symptoms with which SARS-CoV-2 infection can manifest, in addition to the respiratory system.

Basic mRNA vaccine immunology

Although messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines seem novel, they have been in development for more than 30 years.⁸

mRNA encodes the protein for the antigen of interest and is delivered to the host muscle tissue. There, mRNA is translated into the antigen, which stimulates an immune response. Host enzymes then rapidly degrade the mRNA in the vaccine, and it is quickly eliminated from the host.

mRNA vaccines are attractive vaccine candidates, particularly in their application to emerging infectious diseases, for several reasons:

• They are nonreplicating.
• They do not integrate into the host genome.
• They are highly effective.
• They can produce antibody and cellular immunity.
• They can be produced (and modified) quickly on a large scale without having to grow the virus in eggs.

Continue to: Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

 

 

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

Two vaccines (from Pfizer-BioNTech [Comirnaty] and from Moderna [Spikevax]) are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–­approved for COVID-19; both utilize mRNA technology. Two other vaccines, which do not use mRNA technology, have an FDA emergency use authorization (from Janssen Biotech, of Johnson & Johnson [Janssen ­COVID-19 Vaccine] and from Novavax [Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted]).⁹

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. The mRNA of these vaccines encodes the entire spike protein in its pre-fusion conformation, which is the antigen that is replicated in the host, inducing an immune response.^10-12 (Recall the earlier lock-and-key analogy: This conformation structure ingeniously replicates the exposed 3-dimensional key to the host’s immune system.)

The Janssen vaccine utilizes a viral vector (a nonreplicating adenovirus that functions as carrier) to deliver its message to the host for antigen production (again, the spike protein) and an immune response.

The Novavax vaccine uses a recombinant nanoparticle protein composed of the full-length spike protein.^13,14 In this review, we focus on the 2 available mRNA vaccines, (1) given their FDA-authorized status and (2) because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations indicate a preference for mRNA vaccination over viral-vectored vaccination. However, we also address key points about the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine.

Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines

The first study to document the safety and efficacy of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) was published just 12 months after the onset of the pandemic.¹⁰ This initial trial demonstrated a 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-­confirmed COVID-19 at 3-month follow-up.¹⁰ Clinical trial data on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines have continued to be published since that first landmark trial.

Continue to: Data from trials...

Although mRNA vaccines seem novel, they have been in development for more than 30 years.

Data from trials in Israel that became available early in 2021 showed that, in mRNA-vaccinated adults, mechanical ventilation rates declined strikingly, particularly in patients > 70 years of age.^15,16 This finding was corroborated by data from a surveillance study of multiple US hospitals, which showed that mRNA vaccines were > 90% effective in preventing hospitalization in adults > 65 years of age.¹⁷

Data published in May 2021 showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 94% effective in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalization.¹⁸ During the end of the Delta wave of the pandemic and the emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, unvaccinated people were 5 times as likely to be infected as vaccinated people.¹⁹

In March 2022, data from 21 US medical centers in 18 states demonstrated that adults who had received 3 doses of the vaccine were 94% less likely to be intubated or die than those who were unvaccinated.¹⁶ A July 2022 retrospective cohort study of 231,037 subjects showed that the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or for stroke after COVID-19 infection was reduced by more than half in fully vaccinated (ie, 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine or the viral vector [Janssen/Johnson & Johnson] vaccine) subjects, compared to unvaccinated subjects.²⁰ The efficacy of the vaccines is summarized in TABLE 1.^21-24

Even in patients who have natural infection, several studies have shown that ­COVID-19 vaccination after natural infection increases the level and durability of immune response to infection and reinfection and improves clinical outcomes.^9,20,25,26 In summary, published literature shows that (1) mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection and (2) they augment immunity achieved by infection with circulating virus.

Breakthrough infection. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are associated with breakthrough infection (ie, infections in fully ­vaccinated people), a phenomenon influenced by the predominant viral variant circulating, the level of vaccine uptake in the studied population, and the timing of vaccination.^27,28 Nevertheless, vaccinated people who experience breakthrough infection are much less likely to be hospitalized and die compared to those who are unvaccinated, and vaccination with an mRNA vaccine is more effective than immunity acquired from natural infection.²⁹

Continue to: Vaccine adverse effects

Vaccine adverse effects: Common, rare, myths

Both early mRNA vaccine trials reported common minor adverse effects after vaccination (TABLE 1^21-24). These included redness and soreness at the injection site, fatigue, myalgias, fever, and nausea, and tended to be more common after the second dose. These adverse effects are similar to common adverse effects seen with other vaccines. Counseling information about adverse effects can be found on the CDC website.^a

Two uncommon but serious adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination are myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA vaccination and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), which occurs only with the Janssen vaccine.^30,31

Myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males (12 to 18 years), and mostly after a second dose of vaccine, was reported in May 2021. Since then, several studies have shown that the risk of myocarditis is slightly higher in males < 40 years of age, with a predicted case rate ranging from 1 to 10 excess cases for every 1 million patients vaccinated.^30,32 This risk must be balanced against the rate of myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A large study in the United States demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis for those who contract COVID-19 is 16 times higher than it is for those who are disease free.³³ Observational safety data from April 2022 showed that men ages 18 to 29 years had 7 to 8 times the risk of heart complications after natural infection, compared to men of those ages who had been vaccinated.³⁴ In this study of 40 US health care systems, the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis in that age group ranged from 55 to 100 cases for every 100,000 people after infection and from 6 to 15 cases for every 100,000 people after a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.³⁴

Even in patients who have natural infection, vaccination increases the level and durability of immune response to infection and reinfection and improves outcomes.

A risk–benefit analysis conducted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) ultimately supported the conclusions that (1) the risk of myocarditis secondary to vaccination is small and (2) clear benefits of preventing infection, hospitalization, death, and continued transmission outweigh that risk.³⁵ Study of this question, utilizing vaccine safety and reporting systems around the world, has continued.

Continue to: There is emerging evidence...

There is emerging evidence that extending the interval between the 2 doses of vaccine decreases the risk of myocarditis, particularly in male adolescents.³⁶ That evidence ultimately led the CDC to recommend that it might be optimal that an extended interval (ie, waiting 8 weeks between the first and second dose of vaccine), in particular for males ages 12 to 39 years, could be beneficial in decreasing the risk of myocarditis.

TTS. A population risk–benefit analysis of TTS was conducted by ACIP while use of the Janssen vaccine was paused in the United States in December 2021.³⁶ The analysis determined that, although the risk of TTS was largely in younger women (18 to 49 years; 7 cases for every 1 million vaccine doses administered), benefits of the vaccine in preventing death, hospitalization, and a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)—particularly if vaccination was delayed or there was a high rate of community infection—clearly outweighed risks. (The CDC estimated an incidence of 2 cases of TTS with more than 3 million doses of Janssen vaccine administered; assuming moderate transmission kinetics, more than 3500 hospitalizations and more than 350 deaths were prevented by vaccination.³⁶) Ultimately, after the CDC analysis was released, vaccination utilizing the Janssen product resumed; however, the CDC offered the caveat that the Janssen vaccine should be used only in specific situations³⁶ (eg, when there has been a severe reaction to mRNA vaccine or when access to mRNA or recombinant nanoparticle vaccine is limited).

Myths surrounding vaccination

Myth #1: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines contain tissue from aborted fetuses. This myth, which emerged during development of the vaccines, is often a conflation of the use of embryonic cell lines obtained decades ago to produce vaccines (a common practice—not only for vaccines but common pharmaceuticals and foods).³⁷ There are no fetal cells or tissue in any SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and the vaccines have been endorsed by several faith organizations.³⁸

Myth #2: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can cause sterility in men and women. This myth originated from a report in early December 2020 seeking to link a similarity in a protein involved in placental–uterine binding and a portion of the receptor-binding domain antigen produced by the vaccine.³⁹ No studies support this myth; COVID-19 vaccines are recommended in pregnancy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.^40,41

Myth #3: mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines alter a recipient’s DNA. mRNA vaccines are broken down by cellular enzymes. They cannot be integrated into the host genome.⁸

Continue to: Boosters and vaccine mix-and-match

 

 

Boosters and vaccine mix-and-match

As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, with new variants of concern emerging, it has also become clear that immunity wanes. In July 2021, the first report was published after a cluster of breakthrough infections occurred in a town in Massachusetts.⁴² There was no recommendation, at the time, for a booster; the Delta variant was the predominant circulating strain. In this outbreak, there were 469 cases, 74% of which were in people who had received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine.⁴² Five patients were hospitalized; none died.⁴² A key takeaway from this outbreak was that vaccination prevented death, even in the face of fairly wide breakthrough infection.

Vaccination with an mRNA vaccine is more effective than immunity acquired from natural infection.

Newer data show that, although vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was greater than 90% for the first 2 months after a third dose, it waned to 78% by 4 months.⁴³ Published data, combined with real-world experience, show that boosters provide additional reduction in the risk of death and hospitalization. This has led to a recommendation that all patients ≥ 5 years of age receive a booster.^19,26,43-48 The CDC now recommends that people who are ages 12 years and older receive a bivalent booster (containing both wild-type and Omicron-variant antigens) ≥ 2 months after their most recent booster or completed series.

Future booster recommendations will consider the durability of the immune response over time (measured against the original immunizing virus) and the mutation rate of the virus.⁴⁹

Given the limited supply of vaccine early in the pandemic, and the potential for future limitations, there was early interest in studying so-called mix-and-match SARS-CoV-2 vaccination—that is, receiving one product as a first series and then a different product as a booster, also known as heterologous booster vaccination. Although it is preferred that the 2 doses of the primary series be of the same vaccine product, studies that have examined this question support heterologous boosting as an acceptable approach to protective immunity⁵⁰ (TABLE 2⁵¹).

Vaccination in special populations

Three groups of patients have unique host characteristics that are important to consider when providing COVID-19 vaccination in your practice: pregnant patients, children, and patients in the broad category of “immunocompromised status.”

Continue to: Pregnant patients

Pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are more likely to be hospitalized and have a higher risk of a stay in the ICU and need for mechanical ventilation. In a study of the course of illness in symptomatic pregnant patients who were hospitalized, 16.2% were admitted to an ICU and 8.5% were mechanically ventilated.⁵² CDC observational data have consistently supported the finding that (1) pregnant patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at increased risk of preterm labor and (2) their newborns are at increased risk of low birth weight and requiring admission to the neonatal ICU.⁵³

A systematic review of 46 studies in pregnant and lactating patients showed no increased risk of adverse effects from ­COVID-19 vaccination.⁵⁴ Furthermore, data from multiple studies demonstrate that immunoglobulin G antibodies cross the placenta to protect the infant at birth (ie, are found in umbilical cord blood and neonatal blood) and are found in breast milk. The precise kinetics and durability of these antibodies are unknown.

Pregnant patients were initially excluded from vaccine trials (although there were some patients ultimately found to be pregnant, or who became pregnant, during the trial). Careful examination of vaccine safety and efficacy data has supported the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) recommendation that all pregnant patients be vaccinated. Furthermore, EBCOG recommends vaccination during the period of breastfeeding.⁵⁵

Children. A major challenge during the pandemic has been to understand (1) the effect that infection with SARS-CoV-2 has on children and (2) the role of children in transmission of the virus. Although most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms, a few require hospitalization and mechanical ventilation and some develop life-threatening multisystem inflammatory syndrome.⁵⁶ In a large, retrospective study of more than 12,000 children with COVID-19, 5.3% required hospitalization and almost 20% of that subset were admitted to the ICU.⁵⁷

Various hypotheses have been put forward to describe and explain the differences in disease expression between children and adults. These include:

• the absence of comorbidities often seen in adults
• evidence that pediatric patients might have reduced expression of ACE-2
• a more active T-cell response in infected children, due to an active thymus.⁵⁶

Continue to: Although the number of children affected...

A large US study demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis for those who contract COVID-19 is 16 times higher than it is for those who are disease free.

Although the number of children affected by severe SARS-CoV-2 infection is less than the number of adults, there have been important trends observed in infection and hospitalization as different variants have arisen.⁵⁸ The Delta and Omicron variants have both been associated with a disturbing trend in the rate of hospitalization of pediatric patients, particularly from birth to 4 years—patients who were ineligible for vaccination at the time of the study.⁵⁸ Ultimately, these data, combined with multiple studies of vaccine effectiveness in this age group, have led to an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in pediatric populations and a recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics that all children ages 6 months and older be vaccinated.^59,60

Immunocompromised patients. Patients broadly classified as immunocompromised have raised unique concerns. These patients have conditions such as malignancy, primary or secondary immunodeficiency, diabetes, and autoimmune disease; are taking certain classes of medication; or are of older age.⁶¹ Early in the pandemic, data showed that immunocompromised hosts could shed virus longer than hosts with an intact immune system—adding to their risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and of viral adaptation for immune escape.⁶² Antibody response to vaccination was also less robust in this group.

There are limited data that demonstrate a short-lived reduction in risk of infection (in that study, Omicron was the prominent variant) with a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine.⁶³ Based on these data and FDA approval, the CDC recommends (1) an additional third primary dose and (2) a second booster for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those ages 50 years or older, a second booster is now required for their vaccination to be considered up to date.^b

Predictions (or, why is a COVID-19 vaccine important?)

What does the future hold for our struggle with COVID-19? Perhaps we can learn lessons from the study of the 4 known seasonal coronaviruses, which cause the common cold and circulate annually.⁶⁴ First, only relative immunity is produced after infection with a seasonal coronavirus.⁶⁴ Studies of antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses seem to suggest that, although antibody titers remain high, correlation with decreased infection is lacking.⁶⁵ Second, a dominant strain or 2 emerges each season, probably as a result of genetic variation and selective pressure for immune escape from neutralizing antibodies or cellular immunity.

Boosters provide additional reduction in the risk of death and hospitalization, which led to a recommendation that all patients ≥ 5 years of age receive a booster.

The complex relationship among competing immune response duration, emergence of viral immune escape, increasing viral transmissibility, and societal viral source control (through vaccination, masking, distancing, testing, isolation, and treatment) widens the confidence bounds on our estimates of what the future holds. Late in 2020, the CDC began reporting wastewater surveillance data as a method for monitoring, and predicting changes in, community spread.⁶⁶ During Spring 2022, the CDC reported an increase in detection of SARS-CoV-2 from a third of wastewater sampling sites around the United States. This observation coincided with (1) appearance of still more transmissible BA.2 and, later, BA.2.12.1 variants and (2) general relaxing of masking and social distancing guidelines, following the decline of the Omicron variant.

Continue to: At approximately that time...

At approximately that time, application to the FDA for a fourth shot (or a second booster) by Pfizer-BioNTech had been approved for adults > 50 years of age, at > 4 months after their previous vaccination.⁵⁷ In view of warning signs from wastewater surveillance, priorities for vaccination should be to:

• increase uptake in the hesitant
• get boosters to the eligible
• prepare to tackle either seasonal or sporadic recurrence of COVID-19—whichever scenario the future brings.

As an example of how these priorities have been put into action, in September 2022, the FDA approved, and the CDC recommended, new bivalent boosters for everyone ≥ 12 years of age (Pfizer-BioNTech) or for all those ≥ 18 years of age (Moderna), to be administered ≥ 2 months after receipt of their most recent booster or primary series.

^a www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html

^b Visit www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/interim-considerations-us.html for more guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for immunocompromised patients.

CORRESPONDENCE
John L. Kiley, MD, 3551 Roger Brooke Drive, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234; [email protected]

You’re rounding in the nursery and informed of the following about one of your new patients: He’s a 38-week-old infant delivered to a mother diagnosed with syphilis at 12 weeks’ gestation at her initial prenatal visit. Her rapid plasma reagin (RPR) was 1:64 and the fluorescent treponemal antibody–absorption (FTA-ABS) test was positive. By report she was appropriately treated. Maternal RPRs obtained at 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation were 1:16 and 1:4, respectively. Maternal RPR at delivery and the infant’s RPR obtained shortly after birth were both 1:4. The mother wants to know if her baby is infected.

One result of syphilis during pregnancy is intrauterine infection and resultant congenital disease in the infant. Before you answer this mother, let’s discuss syphilis.

Congenital syphilis is a significant public health problem. In 2021, there were a total of 2,677 cases reported for a rate of 74.1 per 100,000 live births. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 24.1% (2,158-2,677 cases), concurrent with a 45.8% increase (10.7-15.6 per 100,000) in the rate of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 years. Between 2012 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 701.5% (334-2,677 cases) and the increase in rates of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 was 642.9% over the same period.

Why are the rates of congenital syphilis increasing? Most cases result from a lack of prenatal care and thus no testing for syphilis. The next most common cause is inadequate maternal treatment.

Congenital syphilis usually is acquired through transplacental transmission of spirochetes in the maternal bloodstream. Occasionally, it occurs at delivery via direct contact with maternal lesions. It is not transmitted in breast milk. Transmission of syphilis:

• Can occur any time during pregnancy.
• Is more likely to occur in women with untreated primary or secondary disease (60%-100%).
• Is approximately 40% in those with early latent syphilis and less than 8% in mothers with late latent syphilis.
• Is higher in women coinfected with HIV since they more frequently receive no prenatal care and their disease is inadequately treated.

Coinfection with syphilis may also increase the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Untreated early syphilis during pregnancy results in spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or perinatal death in up to 40% of cases. Infected newborns with early congenital syphilis can be asymptomatic or have evidence of hepatosplenomegaly, generalized lymphadenopathy, nasal discharge that is occasionally bloody, rash, and skeletal abnormalities (osteochondritis and periostitis). Other manifestations include edema, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, pneumonia, pseudoparalysis, and thrombocytopenia. Asymptomatic infants may have abnormal cerebrospinal fluid findings including elevated CSF white cell count, elevated protein, and a reactive venereal disease research laboratory test.

Late congenital syphilis, defined as the onset of symptoms after 2 years of age is secondary to scarring or persistent inflammation and gumma formation in a variety of tissues. It occurs in up to 40% of cases of untreated maternal disease. Most cases can be prevented by maternal treatment and treatment of the infant within the first 3 months of life. Common clinical manifestations include interstitial keratitis, sensorineural hearing loss, frontal bossing, saddle nose, Hutchinson teeth, mulberry molars, perforation of the hard palate, anterior bowing of the tibia (saber shins), and other skeletal abnormalities.

Diagnostic tests. Maternal diagnosis is dependent upon knowing the results of both a nontreponemal (RPR, VDRL) and a confirmatory treponemal test (TP-PA, TP-EIA, TP-CIA, FTA-ABS,) before or at delivery. TP-PA is the preferred test. When maternal disease is confirmed, the newborn should have the same quantitative nontreponemal test as the mother. A confirmatory treponemal test is not required

Evaluation and treatment. It’s imperative that children born to mothers with a reactive test, regardless of their treatment status, have a thorough exam performed before hospital discharge. The provider must determine what additional interventions should be performed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/congenital-syphilis.htm) have developed standard algorithms for the diagnostic approach and treatment of infants born to mothers with reactive serologic tests for syphilis. It is available in the Red Book for AAP members (https://publications.aap.org/redbook). Recommendations based on various scenarios for neonates up to 1 month of age include proven or highly probable congenital syphilis, possible congenital syphilis, congenital syphilis less likely, and congenital syphilis unlikely. It is beyond the scope of this article to list the criteria and evaluation for each scenario. The reader is referred to the algorithm.

If syphilis is suspected in infants or children older than 1 month, the challenge is to determine if it is untreated congenital syphilis or acquired syphilis. Maternal syphilis status should be determined. Evaluation for congenital syphilis in this age group includes CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count and protein, CBC with differential and platelets, hepatic panel, abdominal ultrasound, long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, neuroimaging, auditory brain stem response, and HIV testing.

Let’s go back to your patient. The mother was diagnosed with syphilis during pregnancy. You confirm that she was treated with benzathine penicillin G, and the course was completed at least 4 weeks before delivery. Treatment with any other drug during pregnancy is not appropriate. The RPR has declined, and the infant’s titer is equal to or less than four times the maternal titer. The exam is significant for generalized adenopathy and slightly bloody nasal discharge. This infant has two findings consistent with congenital syphilis regardless of RPR titer or treatment status. This places him in the proven or highly probable congenital syphilis group. Management includes CSF analysis (VDRL, cell count, and protein), CBC with differential and platelet count, and treatment with penicillin G for 10 days. Additional tests as clinically indicated include: long-bone radiograph, chest radiography, aspartate aminotranferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, neuroimaging, ophthalmologic exam, and auditory brain stem response. Despite maternal treatment, this newborn has congenital syphilis. The same nontreponemal test should be obtained every 2-3 months until it is nonreactive. It should be nonreactive by 6 months. If the infection persists to 6-12 months post treatment, reevaluation including CSF analysis and retreatment may be indicated.

Congenital syphilis can be prevented by maternal screening, diagnosis, and treatment. When that fails it is up to us to diagnosis and adequately treat our patients.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

You’re rounding in the nursery and informed of the following about one of your new patients: He’s a 38-week-old infant delivered to a mother diagnosed with syphilis at 12 weeks’ gestation at her initial prenatal visit. Her rapid plasma reagin (RPR) was 1:64 and the fluorescent treponemal antibody–absorption (FTA-ABS) test was positive. By report she was appropriately treated. Maternal RPRs obtained at 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation were 1:16 and 1:4, respectively. Maternal RPR at delivery and the infant’s RPR obtained shortly after birth were both 1:4. The mother wants to know if her baby is infected.

One result of syphilis during pregnancy is intrauterine infection and resultant congenital disease in the infant. Before you answer this mother, let’s discuss syphilis.

Congenital syphilis is a significant public health problem. In 2021, there were a total of 2,677 cases reported for a rate of 74.1 per 100,000 live births. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 24.1% (2,158-2,677 cases), concurrent with a 45.8% increase (10.7-15.6 per 100,000) in the rate of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 years. Between 2012 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 701.5% (334-2,677 cases) and the increase in rates of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 was 642.9% over the same period.

Why are the rates of congenital syphilis increasing? Most cases result from a lack of prenatal care and thus no testing for syphilis. The next most common cause is inadequate maternal treatment.

Congenital syphilis usually is acquired through transplacental transmission of spirochetes in the maternal bloodstream. Occasionally, it occurs at delivery via direct contact with maternal lesions. It is not transmitted in breast milk. Transmission of syphilis:

• Can occur any time during pregnancy.
• Is more likely to occur in women with untreated primary or secondary disease (60%-100%).
• Is approximately 40% in those with early latent syphilis and less than 8% in mothers with late latent syphilis.
• Is higher in women coinfected with HIV since they more frequently receive no prenatal care and their disease is inadequately treated.

Coinfection with syphilis may also increase the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Untreated early syphilis during pregnancy results in spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or perinatal death in up to 40% of cases. Infected newborns with early congenital syphilis can be asymptomatic or have evidence of hepatosplenomegaly, generalized lymphadenopathy, nasal discharge that is occasionally bloody, rash, and skeletal abnormalities (osteochondritis and periostitis). Other manifestations include edema, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, pneumonia, pseudoparalysis, and thrombocytopenia. Asymptomatic infants may have abnormal cerebrospinal fluid findings including elevated CSF white cell count, elevated protein, and a reactive venereal disease research laboratory test.

Late congenital syphilis, defined as the onset of symptoms after 2 years of age is secondary to scarring or persistent inflammation and gumma formation in a variety of tissues. It occurs in up to 40% of cases of untreated maternal disease. Most cases can be prevented by maternal treatment and treatment of the infant within the first 3 months of life. Common clinical manifestations include interstitial keratitis, sensorineural hearing loss, frontal bossing, saddle nose, Hutchinson teeth, mulberry molars, perforation of the hard palate, anterior bowing of the tibia (saber shins), and other skeletal abnormalities.

Diagnostic tests. Maternal diagnosis is dependent upon knowing the results of both a nontreponemal (RPR, VDRL) and a confirmatory treponemal test (TP-PA, TP-EIA, TP-CIA, FTA-ABS,) before or at delivery. TP-PA is the preferred test. When maternal disease is confirmed, the newborn should have the same quantitative nontreponemal test as the mother. A confirmatory treponemal test is not required

Evaluation and treatment. It’s imperative that children born to mothers with a reactive test, regardless of their treatment status, have a thorough exam performed before hospital discharge. The provider must determine what additional interventions should be performed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/congenital-syphilis.htm) have developed standard algorithms for the diagnostic approach and treatment of infants born to mothers with reactive serologic tests for syphilis. It is available in the Red Book for AAP members (https://publications.aap.org/redbook). Recommendations based on various scenarios for neonates up to 1 month of age include proven or highly probable congenital syphilis, possible congenital syphilis, congenital syphilis less likely, and congenital syphilis unlikely. It is beyond the scope of this article to list the criteria and evaluation for each scenario. The reader is referred to the algorithm.

If syphilis is suspected in infants or children older than 1 month, the challenge is to determine if it is untreated congenital syphilis or acquired syphilis. Maternal syphilis status should be determined. Evaluation for congenital syphilis in this age group includes CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count and protein, CBC with differential and platelets, hepatic panel, abdominal ultrasound, long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, neuroimaging, auditory brain stem response, and HIV testing.

Let’s go back to your patient. The mother was diagnosed with syphilis during pregnancy. You confirm that she was treated with benzathine penicillin G, and the course was completed at least 4 weeks before delivery. Treatment with any other drug during pregnancy is not appropriate. The RPR has declined, and the infant’s titer is equal to or less than four times the maternal titer. The exam is significant for generalized adenopathy and slightly bloody nasal discharge. This infant has two findings consistent with congenital syphilis regardless of RPR titer or treatment status. This places him in the proven or highly probable congenital syphilis group. Management includes CSF analysis (VDRL, cell count, and protein), CBC with differential and platelet count, and treatment with penicillin G for 10 days. Additional tests as clinically indicated include: long-bone radiograph, chest radiography, aspartate aminotranferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, neuroimaging, ophthalmologic exam, and auditory brain stem response. Despite maternal treatment, this newborn has congenital syphilis. The same nontreponemal test should be obtained every 2-3 months until it is nonreactive. It should be nonreactive by 6 months. If the infection persists to 6-12 months post treatment, reevaluation including CSF analysis and retreatment may be indicated.

Congenital syphilis can be prevented by maternal screening, diagnosis, and treatment. When that fails it is up to us to diagnosis and adequately treat our patients.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

You’re rounding in the nursery and informed of the following about one of your new patients: He’s a 38-week-old infant delivered to a mother diagnosed with syphilis at 12 weeks’ gestation at her initial prenatal visit. Her rapid plasma reagin (RPR) was 1:64 and the fluorescent treponemal antibody–absorption (FTA-ABS) test was positive. By report she was appropriately treated. Maternal RPRs obtained at 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation were 1:16 and 1:4, respectively. Maternal RPR at delivery and the infant’s RPR obtained shortly after birth were both 1:4. The mother wants to know if her baby is infected.

One result of syphilis during pregnancy is intrauterine infection and resultant congenital disease in the infant. Before you answer this mother, let’s discuss syphilis.

Congenital syphilis is a significant public health problem. In 2021, there were a total of 2,677 cases reported for a rate of 74.1 per 100,000 live births. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 24.1% (2,158-2,677 cases), concurrent with a 45.8% increase (10.7-15.6 per 100,000) in the rate of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 years. Between 2012 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 701.5% (334-2,677 cases) and the increase in rates of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 was 642.9% over the same period.

Why are the rates of congenital syphilis increasing? Most cases result from a lack of prenatal care and thus no testing for syphilis. The next most common cause is inadequate maternal treatment.

Congenital syphilis usually is acquired through transplacental transmission of spirochetes in the maternal bloodstream. Occasionally, it occurs at delivery via direct contact with maternal lesions. It is not transmitted in breast milk. Transmission of syphilis:

• Can occur any time during pregnancy.
• Is more likely to occur in women with untreated primary or secondary disease (60%-100%).
• Is approximately 40% in those with early latent syphilis and less than 8% in mothers with late latent syphilis.
• Is higher in women coinfected with HIV since they more frequently receive no prenatal care and their disease is inadequately treated.

Coinfection with syphilis may also increase the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Untreated early syphilis during pregnancy results in spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or perinatal death in up to 40% of cases. Infected newborns with early congenital syphilis can be asymptomatic or have evidence of hepatosplenomegaly, generalized lymphadenopathy, nasal discharge that is occasionally bloody, rash, and skeletal abnormalities (osteochondritis and periostitis). Other manifestations include edema, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, pneumonia, pseudoparalysis, and thrombocytopenia. Asymptomatic infants may have abnormal cerebrospinal fluid findings including elevated CSF white cell count, elevated protein, and a reactive venereal disease research laboratory test.

Late congenital syphilis, defined as the onset of symptoms after 2 years of age is secondary to scarring or persistent inflammation and gumma formation in a variety of tissues. It occurs in up to 40% of cases of untreated maternal disease. Most cases can be prevented by maternal treatment and treatment of the infant within the first 3 months of life. Common clinical manifestations include interstitial keratitis, sensorineural hearing loss, frontal bossing, saddle nose, Hutchinson teeth, mulberry molars, perforation of the hard palate, anterior bowing of the tibia (saber shins), and other skeletal abnormalities.

Diagnostic tests. Maternal diagnosis is dependent upon knowing the results of both a nontreponemal (RPR, VDRL) and a confirmatory treponemal test (TP-PA, TP-EIA, TP-CIA, FTA-ABS,) before or at delivery. TP-PA is the preferred test. When maternal disease is confirmed, the newborn should have the same quantitative nontreponemal test as the mother. A confirmatory treponemal test is not required

Evaluation and treatment. It’s imperative that children born to mothers with a reactive test, regardless of their treatment status, have a thorough exam performed before hospital discharge. The provider must determine what additional interventions should be performed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/congenital-syphilis.htm) have developed standard algorithms for the diagnostic approach and treatment of infants born to mothers with reactive serologic tests for syphilis. It is available in the Red Book for AAP members (https://publications.aap.org/redbook). Recommendations based on various scenarios for neonates up to 1 month of age include proven or highly probable congenital syphilis, possible congenital syphilis, congenital syphilis less likely, and congenital syphilis unlikely. It is beyond the scope of this article to list the criteria and evaluation for each scenario. The reader is referred to the algorithm.

If syphilis is suspected in infants or children older than 1 month, the challenge is to determine if it is untreated congenital syphilis or acquired syphilis. Maternal syphilis status should be determined. Evaluation for congenital syphilis in this age group includes CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count and protein, CBC with differential and platelets, hepatic panel, abdominal ultrasound, long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, neuroimaging, auditory brain stem response, and HIV testing.

Let’s go back to your patient. The mother was diagnosed with syphilis during pregnancy. You confirm that she was treated with benzathine penicillin G, and the course was completed at least 4 weeks before delivery. Treatment with any other drug during pregnancy is not appropriate. The RPR has declined, and the infant’s titer is equal to or less than four times the maternal titer. The exam is significant for generalized adenopathy and slightly bloody nasal discharge. This infant has two findings consistent with congenital syphilis regardless of RPR titer or treatment status. This places him in the proven or highly probable congenital syphilis group. Management includes CSF analysis (VDRL, cell count, and protein), CBC with differential and platelet count, and treatment with penicillin G for 10 days. Additional tests as clinically indicated include: long-bone radiograph, chest radiography, aspartate aminotranferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, neuroimaging, ophthalmologic exam, and auditory brain stem response. Despite maternal treatment, this newborn has congenital syphilis. The same nontreponemal test should be obtained every 2-3 months until it is nonreactive. It should be nonreactive by 6 months. If the infection persists to 6-12 months post treatment, reevaluation including CSF analysis and retreatment may be indicated.

Congenital syphilis can be prevented by maternal screening, diagnosis, and treatment. When that fails it is up to us to diagnosis and adequately treat our patients.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

A small increase in new cases brought COVID-19’s latest losing streak to an end at 4 weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After the 57% decline in cases seen during those 4 weeks of September, new cases rose by 3.7% during the week of Sept. 30 to Oct. 6. The 40,656 new cases reported bring the U.S. cumulative count of child COVID-19 cases to over 14.8 million since the pandemic began, which represents 18.4% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report based on state-level data.

The increase in new cases was not reflected in emergency department visits or hospital admissions, which both continued sustained declines that started in August. In the week from Sept. 27 to Oct. 4, the 7-day averages for ED visits with diagnosed COVID were down by 21.5% (age 0-11), 27.3% (12-15), and 18.2% (16-17), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, while the most recent 7-day average for new admissions – 127 per day for Oct. 2-8 – among children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID was down from 161 per day the previous week, a drop of over 21%.

The state-level data that are currently available (several states are no longer reporting) show Alaska (25.5%) and Vermont (25.4%) have the highest proportions of cumulative cases in children, and Florida (12.3%) and Utah (13.5%) have the lowest. Rhode Island has the highest rate of COVID-19 per 100,000 children at 40,427, while Missouri has the lowest at 14,252. The national average is 19,687 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA reported.
 

Taking a look at vaccination

Vaccinations were up slightly in children aged 12-17 years, as 20,000 initial doses were given during the week of Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, compared with 17,000 and 18,000 the previous 2 weeks. Initial vaccinations in younger children, however, continued declines dating back to August, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

The District of Columbia and Massachusetts have the most highly vaccinated groups of 12- to 17-year-olds, as 100% and 95%, respectively, have received initial doses, while Wyoming (39%) and Idaho (42%) have the lowest. D.C. (73%) and Vermont (68%) have the highest proportions of vaccinated 5- to 11-year-olds, and Alabama (17%) and Mississippi (18%) have the lowest. For children under age 5 years, those in D.C. (33%) and Vermont (26%) are the most likely to have received an initial COVID vaccination, while Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi share national-low rates of 2%, the AAP said its report, which is based on CDC data.

When all states and territories are combined, 71% of children aged 12-17 have received at least one dose of vaccine, as have 38.6% of all children 5-11 years old and 6.7% of those under age 5. Almost 61% of the nation’s 16- to 17-year-olds have been fully vaccinated, along with 31.5% of those aged 5-11 and 2.4% of children younger than 5 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

About 42 million children – 58% of the population under the age of 18 years – have not received any vaccine yet, the AAP noted. Meanwhile, CDC data indicate that 36 children died of COVID in the last week, with pediatric deaths now totaling 1,781 over the course of the pandemic.

A small increase in new cases brought COVID-19’s latest losing streak to an end at 4 weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After the 57% decline in cases seen during those 4 weeks of September, new cases rose by 3.7% during the week of Sept. 30 to Oct. 6. The 40,656 new cases reported bring the U.S. cumulative count of child COVID-19 cases to over 14.8 million since the pandemic began, which represents 18.4% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report based on state-level data.

The increase in new cases was not reflected in emergency department visits or hospital admissions, which both continued sustained declines that started in August. In the week from Sept. 27 to Oct. 4, the 7-day averages for ED visits with diagnosed COVID were down by 21.5% (age 0-11), 27.3% (12-15), and 18.2% (16-17), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, while the most recent 7-day average for new admissions – 127 per day for Oct. 2-8 – among children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID was down from 161 per day the previous week, a drop of over 21%.

The state-level data that are currently available (several states are no longer reporting) show Alaska (25.5%) and Vermont (25.4%) have the highest proportions of cumulative cases in children, and Florida (12.3%) and Utah (13.5%) have the lowest. Rhode Island has the highest rate of COVID-19 per 100,000 children at 40,427, while Missouri has the lowest at 14,252. The national average is 19,687 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA reported.
 

Taking a look at vaccination

Vaccinations were up slightly in children aged 12-17 years, as 20,000 initial doses were given during the week of Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, compared with 17,000 and 18,000 the previous 2 weeks. Initial vaccinations in younger children, however, continued declines dating back to August, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

The District of Columbia and Massachusetts have the most highly vaccinated groups of 12- to 17-year-olds, as 100% and 95%, respectively, have received initial doses, while Wyoming (39%) and Idaho (42%) have the lowest. D.C. (73%) and Vermont (68%) have the highest proportions of vaccinated 5- to 11-year-olds, and Alabama (17%) and Mississippi (18%) have the lowest. For children under age 5 years, those in D.C. (33%) and Vermont (26%) are the most likely to have received an initial COVID vaccination, while Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi share national-low rates of 2%, the AAP said its report, which is based on CDC data.

When all states and territories are combined, 71% of children aged 12-17 have received at least one dose of vaccine, as have 38.6% of all children 5-11 years old and 6.7% of those under age 5. Almost 61% of the nation’s 16- to 17-year-olds have been fully vaccinated, along with 31.5% of those aged 5-11 and 2.4% of children younger than 5 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

About 42 million children – 58% of the population under the age of 18 years – have not received any vaccine yet, the AAP noted. Meanwhile, CDC data indicate that 36 children died of COVID in the last week, with pediatric deaths now totaling 1,781 over the course of the pandemic.

A small increase in new cases brought COVID-19’s latest losing streak to an end at 4 weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After the 57% decline in cases seen during those 4 weeks of September, new cases rose by 3.7% during the week of Sept. 30 to Oct. 6. The 40,656 new cases reported bring the U.S. cumulative count of child COVID-19 cases to over 14.8 million since the pandemic began, which represents 18.4% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly report based on state-level data.

The increase in new cases was not reflected in emergency department visits or hospital admissions, which both continued sustained declines that started in August. In the week from Sept. 27 to Oct. 4, the 7-day averages for ED visits with diagnosed COVID were down by 21.5% (age 0-11), 27.3% (12-15), and 18.2% (16-17), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, while the most recent 7-day average for new admissions – 127 per day for Oct. 2-8 – among children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID was down from 161 per day the previous week, a drop of over 21%.

The state-level data that are currently available (several states are no longer reporting) show Alaska (25.5%) and Vermont (25.4%) have the highest proportions of cumulative cases in children, and Florida (12.3%) and Utah (13.5%) have the lowest. Rhode Island has the highest rate of COVID-19 per 100,000 children at 40,427, while Missouri has the lowest at 14,252. The national average is 19,687 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA reported.
 

Taking a look at vaccination

Vaccinations were up slightly in children aged 12-17 years, as 20,000 initial doses were given during the week of Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, compared with 17,000 and 18,000 the previous 2 weeks. Initial vaccinations in younger children, however, continued declines dating back to August, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

The District of Columbia and Massachusetts have the most highly vaccinated groups of 12- to 17-year-olds, as 100% and 95%, respectively, have received initial doses, while Wyoming (39%) and Idaho (42%) have the lowest. D.C. (73%) and Vermont (68%) have the highest proportions of vaccinated 5- to 11-year-olds, and Alabama (17%) and Mississippi (18%) have the lowest. For children under age 5 years, those in D.C. (33%) and Vermont (26%) are the most likely to have received an initial COVID vaccination, while Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi share national-low rates of 2%, the AAP said its report, which is based on CDC data.

When all states and territories are combined, 71% of children aged 12-17 have received at least one dose of vaccine, as have 38.6% of all children 5-11 years old and 6.7% of those under age 5. Almost 61% of the nation’s 16- to 17-year-olds have been fully vaccinated, along with 31.5% of those aged 5-11 and 2.4% of children younger than 5 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

About 42 million children – 58% of the population under the age of 18 years – have not received any vaccine yet, the AAP noted. Meanwhile, CDC data indicate that 36 children died of COVID in the last week, with pediatric deaths now totaling 1,781 over the course of the pandemic.

In the 2020-2021 influenza season, there was practically no influenza circulating in the United States. This decline from seasonal expectations, described in a previous Practice Alert, was probably due to the interventions aimed at limiting the spread of ­COVID-19: masking, social distancing, working from home, and cancellation of large, crowded events.¹ In 2021-2022 influenza returned, but only in moderation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were between 82,000 to 170,000 hospitalizations and 5000 to 14,000 deaths attributed to influenza.² In addition, US virologic surveillance indicates that 98.6% of specimens tested positive for influenza A.² While the vaccine’s effectiveness in 2021-2022 was far below what was desired, it still prevented a great deal of flu morbidity and mortality and reduced acute respiratory illness due to influenza A(H3N2) virus by 35% (TABLE 1).³ All vaccines for the upcoming flu season are quadrivalent, containing 2 influenza A antigens and 2 influenza B antigens (TABLES 2⁴ and 3⁵).

Vaccine effectiveness in older adults (≥ 65 years) has been very low. TABLE 4⁶ shows vaccine effectiveness in the elderly for 10 influenza seasons between 2011 and 2020.⁶ In nearly half of those seasons, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was possibly nil. All influenza vaccines licensed for use in the United States are approved for use in those ≥ 65 years of age, except live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).

Three products were developed to address the issue of low vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has not expressed a preference for any specific vaccine for this age group. The high-dose qudrivalent vaccine (HD-IIV4), Fluzone, contains 4 times the antigen level of the standard-dose vaccines (SD-IIV4)—60 μg vs 15 μg. Fluzone was initially approved in 2014 as a trivalent vaccine and was approved as a quadrivalent vaccine in 2019. The adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4), Fluad, was also inititally approved as a trivalent vaccine in 2015 and as quadrivalent in 2021. Both HD-IIV4 and aIIV4 are approved only for those ≥ 65 years of age. Recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), Flublok, is approved for ages ≥ 18 years and is produced by a process that does not involve eggs. It contains 3 times the antigen level as SD-IIV4 vaccines.

All 3 of these vaccines (HD-IIV4, aIIV4, and RIV4) have been compared with SD-IIV4 for effectiveness in the elderly and have yielded better outcomes. However, direct comparisons among the 3 vaccines have not shown robust evidence of superiority, and ACIP is unwilling to preferentially recommend one of them at this time. At its June 2022 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend any of these 3 options over the SD-IIV 4 options for those ≥ 65 years of age, with the caveat that if only an SD-IIV4 option is available it should be administered in preference to delaying vaccination.

One other vaccine change for the upcoming season involves the cell culture–based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4), Flucelvax, which is now approved for those ages ≥ 6 months. It previously was approved only for ages ≥ 2 years. All unadjuvanted SD-IIV4 vaccines as well as ccIIV4 are now approved for everyone ≥ 6 months of age. LAIV continues to be approved for ages 2 through 49 years. The only influenza vaccine products that contain thimerosal are those in multidose vials (TABLE 2⁴).

Promote vaccination and infection-control practices. ACIP continues to recommend influenza vaccine for all those ages ≥ 6 months, with 2 doses for those < 9 years old not previously vaccinated with an influenza vaccine. In addition to encouraging and offering influenza vaccine to patients and staff, we can minimize the spread of influenza in the community by robust infection-control practices in the clinical setting: masking and isolation of patients with respiratory symptoms, encouraging those with symptoms to stay at home and mask when around family members, advising frequent hand washing and respiratory hygiene, and using pre- and post-exposure chemoprophylaxis as appropriate. All recommendations regarding influenza for 2022-2023 can be found on the CDC website.⁴

In the 2020-2021 influenza season, there was practically no influenza circulating in the United States. This decline from seasonal expectations, described in a previous Practice Alert, was probably due to the interventions aimed at limiting the spread of ­COVID-19: masking, social distancing, working from home, and cancellation of large, crowded events.¹ In 2021-2022 influenza returned, but only in moderation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were between 82,000 to 170,000 hospitalizations and 5000 to 14,000 deaths attributed to influenza.² In addition, US virologic surveillance indicates that 98.6% of specimens tested positive for influenza A.² While the vaccine’s effectiveness in 2021-2022 was far below what was desired, it still prevented a great deal of flu morbidity and mortality and reduced acute respiratory illness due to influenza A(H3N2) virus by 35% (TABLE 1).³ All vaccines for the upcoming flu season are quadrivalent, containing 2 influenza A antigens and 2 influenza B antigens (TABLES 2⁴ and 3⁵).

Vaccine effectiveness in older adults (≥ 65 years) has been very low. TABLE 4⁶ shows vaccine effectiveness in the elderly for 10 influenza seasons between 2011 and 2020.⁶ In nearly half of those seasons, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was possibly nil. All influenza vaccines licensed for use in the United States are approved for use in those ≥ 65 years of age, except live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).

Three products were developed to address the issue of low vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has not expressed a preference for any specific vaccine for this age group. The high-dose qudrivalent vaccine (HD-IIV4), Fluzone, contains 4 times the antigen level of the standard-dose vaccines (SD-IIV4)—60 μg vs 15 μg. Fluzone was initially approved in 2014 as a trivalent vaccine and was approved as a quadrivalent vaccine in 2019. The adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4), Fluad, was also inititally approved as a trivalent vaccine in 2015 and as quadrivalent in 2021. Both HD-IIV4 and aIIV4 are approved only for those ≥ 65 years of age. Recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), Flublok, is approved for ages ≥ 18 years and is produced by a process that does not involve eggs. It contains 3 times the antigen level as SD-IIV4 vaccines.

All 3 of these vaccines (HD-IIV4, aIIV4, and RIV4) have been compared with SD-IIV4 for effectiveness in the elderly and have yielded better outcomes. However, direct comparisons among the 3 vaccines have not shown robust evidence of superiority, and ACIP is unwilling to preferentially recommend one of them at this time. At its June 2022 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend any of these 3 options over the SD-IIV 4 options for those ≥ 65 years of age, with the caveat that if only an SD-IIV4 option is available it should be administered in preference to delaying vaccination.

One other vaccine change for the upcoming season involves the cell culture–based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4), Flucelvax, which is now approved for those ages ≥ 6 months. It previously was approved only for ages ≥ 2 years. All unadjuvanted SD-IIV4 vaccines as well as ccIIV4 are now approved for everyone ≥ 6 months of age. LAIV continues to be approved for ages 2 through 49 years. The only influenza vaccine products that contain thimerosal are those in multidose vials (TABLE 2⁴).

Promote vaccination and infection-control practices. ACIP continues to recommend influenza vaccine for all those ages ≥ 6 months, with 2 doses for those < 9 years old not previously vaccinated with an influenza vaccine. In addition to encouraging and offering influenza vaccine to patients and staff, we can minimize the spread of influenza in the community by robust infection-control practices in the clinical setting: masking and isolation of patients with respiratory symptoms, encouraging those with symptoms to stay at home and mask when around family members, advising frequent hand washing and respiratory hygiene, and using pre- and post-exposure chemoprophylaxis as appropriate. All recommendations regarding influenza for 2022-2023 can be found on the CDC website.⁴

In the 2020-2021 influenza season, there was practically no influenza circulating in the United States. This decline from seasonal expectations, described in a previous Practice Alert, was probably due to the interventions aimed at limiting the spread of ­COVID-19: masking, social distancing, working from home, and cancellation of large, crowded events.¹ In 2021-2022 influenza returned, but only in moderation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were between 82,000 to 170,000 hospitalizations and 5000 to 14,000 deaths attributed to influenza.² In addition, US virologic surveillance indicates that 98.6% of specimens tested positive for influenza A.² While the vaccine’s effectiveness in 2021-2022 was far below what was desired, it still prevented a great deal of flu morbidity and mortality and reduced acute respiratory illness due to influenza A(H3N2) virus by 35% (TABLE 1).³ All vaccines for the upcoming flu season are quadrivalent, containing 2 influenza A antigens and 2 influenza B antigens (TABLES 2⁴ and 3⁵).

Vaccine effectiveness in older adults (≥ 65 years) has been very low. TABLE 4⁶ shows vaccine effectiveness in the elderly for 10 influenza seasons between 2011 and 2020.⁶ In nearly half of those seasons, the estimated vaccine effectiveness was possibly nil. All influenza vaccines licensed for use in the United States are approved for use in those ≥ 65 years of age, except live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV).

Three products were developed to address the issue of low vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has not expressed a preference for any specific vaccine for this age group. The high-dose qudrivalent vaccine (HD-IIV4), Fluzone, contains 4 times the antigen level of the standard-dose vaccines (SD-IIV4)—60 μg vs 15 μg. Fluzone was initially approved in 2014 as a trivalent vaccine and was approved as a quadrivalent vaccine in 2019. The adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV4), Fluad, was also inititally approved as a trivalent vaccine in 2015 and as quadrivalent in 2021. Both HD-IIV4 and aIIV4 are approved only for those ≥ 65 years of age. Recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (RIV4), Flublok, is approved for ages ≥ 18 years and is produced by a process that does not involve eggs. It contains 3 times the antigen level as SD-IIV4 vaccines.

All 3 of these vaccines (HD-IIV4, aIIV4, and RIV4) have been compared with SD-IIV4 for effectiveness in the elderly and have yielded better outcomes. However, direct comparisons among the 3 vaccines have not shown robust evidence of superiority, and ACIP is unwilling to preferentially recommend one of them at this time. At its June 2022 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend any of these 3 options over the SD-IIV 4 options for those ≥ 65 years of age, with the caveat that if only an SD-IIV4 option is available it should be administered in preference to delaying vaccination.

One other vaccine change for the upcoming season involves the cell culture–based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV4), Flucelvax, which is now approved for those ages ≥ 6 months. It previously was approved only for ages ≥ 2 years. All unadjuvanted SD-IIV4 vaccines as well as ccIIV4 are now approved for everyone ≥ 6 months of age. LAIV continues to be approved for ages 2 through 49 years. The only influenza vaccine products that contain thimerosal are those in multidose vials (TABLE 2⁴).

Promote vaccination and infection-control practices. ACIP continues to recommend influenza vaccine for all those ages ≥ 6 months, with 2 doses for those < 9 years old not previously vaccinated with an influenza vaccine. In addition to encouraging and offering influenza vaccine to patients and staff, we can minimize the spread of influenza in the community by robust infection-control practices in the clinical setting: masking and isolation of patients with respiratory symptoms, encouraging those with symptoms to stay at home and mask when around family members, advising frequent hand washing and respiratory hygiene, and using pre- and post-exposure chemoprophylaxis as appropriate. All recommendations regarding influenza for 2022-2023 can be found on the CDC website.⁴