Infectious Diseases

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of lice and scabies decreased significantly among children and adults in North Carolina during the confinement period of the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 2020 and February 2021, according to a report in Pediatric Dermatology.

When COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization in March 2020, many countries including the United States enacted lockdown and isolation measures to help contain the spread of the disease. Since scabies and lice are both spread by direct contact, “we hypothesized that the nationwide lockdown would influence the transmission of these two conditions among individuals,” wrote Marianne Bonanno, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“The pandemic created a unique opportunity for real-life observations following physical distancing measures being put in place,” coauthor Christopher Sayed, MD, associate professor of dermatology at UNC, said in an interview. “It makes intuitive sense that since lice and scabies spread by cost physical contact that rates would decrease with school closures and other physical distancing measures. Reports from other countries in which extended families more often live together and were forced to spend more time in close quarters saw increased rates so it was interesting to see this contrast,” he noted.

In the study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,858 cases of adult scabies, 893 cases of pediatric scabies, and 804 cases of pediatric lice reported in North Carolina between March 2017 and February 2021. They compared monthly cases of scabies and lice, and prescriptions during the period before the pandemic (March 2017 to February 2020), and during the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021).

Pediatric lice cases decreased by 60.6% over the study period (P < .001). Significant decreases also occurred in adult scabies (31.1%, P < .001) and pediatric scabies (39%, P < .01).

The number of prescriptions for lice and scabies also decreased significantly (P < .01) during the study period, although these numbers differed from the actual cases. Prescriptions decreased by 41.4%, 29.9%, and 69.3% for pediatric scabies, adult scabies, and pediatric lice, respectively.

Both pediatric scabies and pediatric lice showed a greater drop in prescriptions than in cases, while the drop in prescriptions for adult scabies was slightly less than the drop in cases.

The difference in the decreased numbers between cases and prescriptions may stem from the decrease in close contacts during the pandemic, which decreased the need for multiple prescriptions, but other potential explanations could be examined in future studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design and potential underdiagnosis and underreporting, as well as the focus only on a population in a single state, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted.

However, the results offer preliminary insights on the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on scabies and lice, and suggest the potential value of physical distancing to reduce transmission of both conditions, especially in settings such as schools and prisons, to help contain future outbreaks, they concluded.

The study findings reinforce physical contact as the likely route of disease transmission, for lice and scabies, Dr. Sayed said in the interview. “It’s possible distancing measures on a small scale could be considered for outbreaks in institutional settings, though the risks of these infestations are much lower than with COVID-19,” he said. “It will be interesting to observe trends as physical distancing measures end to see if cases rebound in the next few years,” he added.

Drop in cases likely temporary

“Examining the epidemiology of different infectious diseases over time is an interesting and important area of study,” said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the results.

“The pandemic dramatically altered the daily lives of adults and children across the globe, and we can learn a lot from studying how social distancing and prolonged masking has made an impact on the incidence and prevalence of different infectious illnesses in the country and across the world,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Maguiness said she was not surprised by the study findings. “In fact, other countries have published similar studies documenting a reduction in both head lice and scabies infestations during the time of the pandemic,” she said. “In France, it was noted that during March to December 2020, there was a reduction in sales for topical head lice and scabies treatments of 44% and 14%, respectively. Similarly, a study from Argentina documented a decline in head lice infestations by about 25% among children,” she said.

“I personally noted a marked decrease in both of these diagnoses among children in my own clinic,” she added.

“Since both of these conditions are spread through close physical contact with others, it makes sense that there would be a steep decline in ectoparasitic infections during times of social distancing. However, anecdotally we are now diagnosing and treating these infestations again more regularly in our clinic,” said Dr. Maguiness. “As social distancing relaxes, I would expect that the incidence of both head lice and scabies will again increase.” 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Maguiness had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The incidence of lice and scabies decreased significantly among children and adults in North Carolina during the confinement period of the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 2020 and February 2021, according to a report in Pediatric Dermatology.

When COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization in March 2020, many countries including the United States enacted lockdown and isolation measures to help contain the spread of the disease. Since scabies and lice are both spread by direct contact, “we hypothesized that the nationwide lockdown would influence the transmission of these two conditions among individuals,” wrote Marianne Bonanno, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“The pandemic created a unique opportunity for real-life observations following physical distancing measures being put in place,” coauthor Christopher Sayed, MD, associate professor of dermatology at UNC, said in an interview. “It makes intuitive sense that since lice and scabies spread by cost physical contact that rates would decrease with school closures and other physical distancing measures. Reports from other countries in which extended families more often live together and were forced to spend more time in close quarters saw increased rates so it was interesting to see this contrast,” he noted.

In the study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,858 cases of adult scabies, 893 cases of pediatric scabies, and 804 cases of pediatric lice reported in North Carolina between March 2017 and February 2021. They compared monthly cases of scabies and lice, and prescriptions during the period before the pandemic (March 2017 to February 2020), and during the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021).

Pediatric lice cases decreased by 60.6% over the study period (P < .001). Significant decreases also occurred in adult scabies (31.1%, P < .001) and pediatric scabies (39%, P < .01).

The number of prescriptions for lice and scabies also decreased significantly (P < .01) during the study period, although these numbers differed from the actual cases. Prescriptions decreased by 41.4%, 29.9%, and 69.3% for pediatric scabies, adult scabies, and pediatric lice, respectively.

Both pediatric scabies and pediatric lice showed a greater drop in prescriptions than in cases, while the drop in prescriptions for adult scabies was slightly less than the drop in cases.

The difference in the decreased numbers between cases and prescriptions may stem from the decrease in close contacts during the pandemic, which decreased the need for multiple prescriptions, but other potential explanations could be examined in future studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design and potential underdiagnosis and underreporting, as well as the focus only on a population in a single state, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted.

However, the results offer preliminary insights on the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on scabies and lice, and suggest the potential value of physical distancing to reduce transmission of both conditions, especially in settings such as schools and prisons, to help contain future outbreaks, they concluded.

The study findings reinforce physical contact as the likely route of disease transmission, for lice and scabies, Dr. Sayed said in the interview. “It’s possible distancing measures on a small scale could be considered for outbreaks in institutional settings, though the risks of these infestations are much lower than with COVID-19,” he said. “It will be interesting to observe trends as physical distancing measures end to see if cases rebound in the next few years,” he added.

Drop in cases likely temporary

“Examining the epidemiology of different infectious diseases over time is an interesting and important area of study,” said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the results.

“The pandemic dramatically altered the daily lives of adults and children across the globe, and we can learn a lot from studying how social distancing and prolonged masking has made an impact on the incidence and prevalence of different infectious illnesses in the country and across the world,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Maguiness said she was not surprised by the study findings. “In fact, other countries have published similar studies documenting a reduction in both head lice and scabies infestations during the time of the pandemic,” she said. “In France, it was noted that during March to December 2020, there was a reduction in sales for topical head lice and scabies treatments of 44% and 14%, respectively. Similarly, a study from Argentina documented a decline in head lice infestations by about 25% among children,” she said.

“I personally noted a marked decrease in both of these diagnoses among children in my own clinic,” she added.

“Since both of these conditions are spread through close physical contact with others, it makes sense that there would be a steep decline in ectoparasitic infections during times of social distancing. However, anecdotally we are now diagnosing and treating these infestations again more regularly in our clinic,” said Dr. Maguiness. “As social distancing relaxes, I would expect that the incidence of both head lice and scabies will again increase.” 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Maguiness had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The incidence of lice and scabies decreased significantly among children and adults in North Carolina during the confinement period of the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 2020 and February 2021, according to a report in Pediatric Dermatology.

When COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization in March 2020, many countries including the United States enacted lockdown and isolation measures to help contain the spread of the disease. Since scabies and lice are both spread by direct contact, “we hypothesized that the nationwide lockdown would influence the transmission of these two conditions among individuals,” wrote Marianne Bonanno, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“The pandemic created a unique opportunity for real-life observations following physical distancing measures being put in place,” coauthor Christopher Sayed, MD, associate professor of dermatology at UNC, said in an interview. “It makes intuitive sense that since lice and scabies spread by cost physical contact that rates would decrease with school closures and other physical distancing measures. Reports from other countries in which extended families more often live together and were forced to spend more time in close quarters saw increased rates so it was interesting to see this contrast,” he noted.

In the study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,858 cases of adult scabies, 893 cases of pediatric scabies, and 804 cases of pediatric lice reported in North Carolina between March 2017 and February 2021. They compared monthly cases of scabies and lice, and prescriptions during the period before the pandemic (March 2017 to February 2020), and during the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021).

Pediatric lice cases decreased by 60.6% over the study period (P < .001). Significant decreases also occurred in adult scabies (31.1%, P < .001) and pediatric scabies (39%, P < .01).

The number of prescriptions for lice and scabies also decreased significantly (P < .01) during the study period, although these numbers differed from the actual cases. Prescriptions decreased by 41.4%, 29.9%, and 69.3% for pediatric scabies, adult scabies, and pediatric lice, respectively.

Both pediatric scabies and pediatric lice showed a greater drop in prescriptions than in cases, while the drop in prescriptions for adult scabies was slightly less than the drop in cases.

The difference in the decreased numbers between cases and prescriptions may stem from the decrease in close contacts during the pandemic, which decreased the need for multiple prescriptions, but other potential explanations could be examined in future studies, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design and potential underdiagnosis and underreporting, as well as the focus only on a population in a single state, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted.

However, the results offer preliminary insights on the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on scabies and lice, and suggest the potential value of physical distancing to reduce transmission of both conditions, especially in settings such as schools and prisons, to help contain future outbreaks, they concluded.

The study findings reinforce physical contact as the likely route of disease transmission, for lice and scabies, Dr. Sayed said in the interview. “It’s possible distancing measures on a small scale could be considered for outbreaks in institutional settings, though the risks of these infestations are much lower than with COVID-19,” he said. “It will be interesting to observe trends as physical distancing measures end to see if cases rebound in the next few years,” he added.

Drop in cases likely temporary

“Examining the epidemiology of different infectious diseases over time is an interesting and important area of study,” said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the results.

“The pandemic dramatically altered the daily lives of adults and children across the globe, and we can learn a lot from studying how social distancing and prolonged masking has made an impact on the incidence and prevalence of different infectious illnesses in the country and across the world,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Maguiness said she was not surprised by the study findings. “In fact, other countries have published similar studies documenting a reduction in both head lice and scabies infestations during the time of the pandemic,” she said. “In France, it was noted that during March to December 2020, there was a reduction in sales for topical head lice and scabies treatments of 44% and 14%, respectively. Similarly, a study from Argentina documented a decline in head lice infestations by about 25% among children,” she said.

“I personally noted a marked decrease in both of these diagnoses among children in my own clinic,” she added.

“Since both of these conditions are spread through close physical contact with others, it makes sense that there would be a steep decline in ectoparasitic infections during times of social distancing. However, anecdotally we are now diagnosing and treating these infestations again more regularly in our clinic,” said Dr. Maguiness. “As social distancing relaxes, I would expect that the incidence of both head lice and scabies will again increase.” 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Maguiness had no financial conflicts to disclose.

An extensive new study shows that climate change can aggravate over half of known human pathogenic diseases. This comprehensive systematic review of the literature narrowed down 3,213 cases, linking 286 infectious diseases to specific climate change hazards. Of these, 58% were worsened, and only 9 conditions showed any benefit associated with environmental change.

The study was published online in Nature Climate Change. The complete list of cases, transmission pathways, and associated papers can be explored in detail – a remarkable, interactive data visualization.

To compile the data, investigators searched 10 keywords on the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention databases. They then filled gaps by examining alternative names of the diseases, pathogens, and hazards.

Coauthor Tristan McKenzie, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, told this news organization: “If someone is interested in a certain pathway, it’s a beautiful starting point.” Or if someone wants to “do a modeling study and they want to focus on a specific area, the specific examples in the literature are already there” in the extensive database.

An early key finding is that warming and increased precipitation broadened the range of many pathogens through expansion of their habitat. This shift brings many pathogens closer to people. We have already seen vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, birds, and several mammals spreading infections over a broader range. Examples are viruses (dengue, Chikungunya), bacteria (Lyme), protozoans (trypanosomes), and more. Warming has affected aquatic systems (for example, Vibrio) and higher altitudes and latitudes (malaria, dengue).

Pathogenic hazards are not just moving closer to people. People are also moving closer to the pathogenic hazards, with heat waves causing people to seek refuge with water activities, for example. This increases their exposure to pathogens, such as Vibrio, hepatitis, and water-borne gastroenteritis.

Some hazards, such as warming, can even make pathogens more virulent. Heat can upregulate Vibrio’s gene expression of proteins affecting transmission, adhesion, penetration, and host injury.

Heat and rainfall can increase stagnant water, enhancing mosquitoes’ breeding and growing grounds and enabling them to transmit many more infections.

People’s capacity to respond to climate hazards can also be impaired. For example, there is a reduced concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO2 levels, which can result in malnutrition. Lower crop yields can further fuel outbreaks of measles, cholera, or Cryptosporidium. Drought also likely forces people to drink contaminated water.

Among all this bad news, the authors found a small number of cases where climate hazards reduced the risk of infection. For example, droughts reduced the breeding grounds of mosquitoes, reducing the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya. But in other cases, the density of mosquitoes increased in some pools, causing an increased local risk of infection.

Naomi Hauser, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor at UC Davis, Sacramento, told this news organization she was particularly impressed with the data visualization. “It really emphasizes the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. It makes you feel the weight of what they’re trying to represent,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Hauser said she would have liked “more emphasis on how the climate hazards interact with each other. It sort of made it sound like each of these climate hazards is in a vacuum – like when there’s floods, and that’s the problem. But there are a lot of other things ... like when we have warming and surface water temperature changes, it can also change the pH of the water and the salinity of the water, and those can also impact what we see with pathogens in the water.”

Dr. McKenzie explained one limitation: The study looked only at 10 keywords. So an example of a dust storm in Africa causing an increase in Vibrio in the United States could not be identified by this approach. “This also goes back to the scale of the problem, because we have something going on in the Sahara that’s impacting the East Coast of the United States,” he said. “And finding that link is not necessarily obvious – or at least not as obvious as [if] there [were] a hurricane and a bunch of people got sick from waterborne disease. So I think that really highlights the scale of this problem.”

Instead of looking at only one individual or group of pathogens, the study provided a much broader review of infections caused by an array of climate hazards. As Dr. McKenzie said, “no one’s actually done the work previously to really just try and get a comprehensive picture of what we might be dealing with. And so that was the goal for us.” The 58% estimate of diseases worsened by climate change is conservative, and, he says, “arguably, this is an even bigger problem than what we present.”

Dr. McKenzie concluded: “If we’re looking at the spread of some more serious or rare diseases in areas, to me then the answer is ... we need to be aggressively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s start with the source.”

Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Hauser report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An extensive new study shows that climate change can aggravate over half of known human pathogenic diseases. This comprehensive systematic review of the literature narrowed down 3,213 cases, linking 286 infectious diseases to specific climate change hazards. Of these, 58% were worsened, and only 9 conditions showed any benefit associated with environmental change.

The study was published online in Nature Climate Change. The complete list of cases, transmission pathways, and associated papers can be explored in detail – a remarkable, interactive data visualization.

To compile the data, investigators searched 10 keywords on the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention databases. They then filled gaps by examining alternative names of the diseases, pathogens, and hazards.

Coauthor Tristan McKenzie, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, told this news organization: “If someone is interested in a certain pathway, it’s a beautiful starting point.” Or if someone wants to “do a modeling study and they want to focus on a specific area, the specific examples in the literature are already there” in the extensive database.

An early key finding is that warming and increased precipitation broadened the range of many pathogens through expansion of their habitat. This shift brings many pathogens closer to people. We have already seen vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, birds, and several mammals spreading infections over a broader range. Examples are viruses (dengue, Chikungunya), bacteria (Lyme), protozoans (trypanosomes), and more. Warming has affected aquatic systems (for example, Vibrio) and higher altitudes and latitudes (malaria, dengue).

Pathogenic hazards are not just moving closer to people. People are also moving closer to the pathogenic hazards, with heat waves causing people to seek refuge with water activities, for example. This increases their exposure to pathogens, such as Vibrio, hepatitis, and water-borne gastroenteritis.

Some hazards, such as warming, can even make pathogens more virulent. Heat can upregulate Vibrio’s gene expression of proteins affecting transmission, adhesion, penetration, and host injury.

Heat and rainfall can increase stagnant water, enhancing mosquitoes’ breeding and growing grounds and enabling them to transmit many more infections.

People’s capacity to respond to climate hazards can also be impaired. For example, there is a reduced concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO2 levels, which can result in malnutrition. Lower crop yields can further fuel outbreaks of measles, cholera, or Cryptosporidium. Drought also likely forces people to drink contaminated water.

Among all this bad news, the authors found a small number of cases where climate hazards reduced the risk of infection. For example, droughts reduced the breeding grounds of mosquitoes, reducing the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya. But in other cases, the density of mosquitoes increased in some pools, causing an increased local risk of infection.

Naomi Hauser, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor at UC Davis, Sacramento, told this news organization she was particularly impressed with the data visualization. “It really emphasizes the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. It makes you feel the weight of what they’re trying to represent,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Hauser said she would have liked “more emphasis on how the climate hazards interact with each other. It sort of made it sound like each of these climate hazards is in a vacuum – like when there’s floods, and that’s the problem. But there are a lot of other things ... like when we have warming and surface water temperature changes, it can also change the pH of the water and the salinity of the water, and those can also impact what we see with pathogens in the water.”

Dr. McKenzie explained one limitation: The study looked only at 10 keywords. So an example of a dust storm in Africa causing an increase in Vibrio in the United States could not be identified by this approach. “This also goes back to the scale of the problem, because we have something going on in the Sahara that’s impacting the East Coast of the United States,” he said. “And finding that link is not necessarily obvious – or at least not as obvious as [if] there [were] a hurricane and a bunch of people got sick from waterborne disease. So I think that really highlights the scale of this problem.”

Instead of looking at only one individual or group of pathogens, the study provided a much broader review of infections caused by an array of climate hazards. As Dr. McKenzie said, “no one’s actually done the work previously to really just try and get a comprehensive picture of what we might be dealing with. And so that was the goal for us.” The 58% estimate of diseases worsened by climate change is conservative, and, he says, “arguably, this is an even bigger problem than what we present.”

Dr. McKenzie concluded: “If we’re looking at the spread of some more serious or rare diseases in areas, to me then the answer is ... we need to be aggressively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s start with the source.”

Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Hauser report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An extensive new study shows that climate change can aggravate over half of known human pathogenic diseases. This comprehensive systematic review of the literature narrowed down 3,213 cases, linking 286 infectious diseases to specific climate change hazards. Of these, 58% were worsened, and only 9 conditions showed any benefit associated with environmental change.

The study was published online in Nature Climate Change. The complete list of cases, transmission pathways, and associated papers can be explored in detail – a remarkable, interactive data visualization.

To compile the data, investigators searched 10 keywords on the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention databases. They then filled gaps by examining alternative names of the diseases, pathogens, and hazards.

Coauthor Tristan McKenzie, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, told this news organization: “If someone is interested in a certain pathway, it’s a beautiful starting point.” Or if someone wants to “do a modeling study and they want to focus on a specific area, the specific examples in the literature are already there” in the extensive database.

An early key finding is that warming and increased precipitation broadened the range of many pathogens through expansion of their habitat. This shift brings many pathogens closer to people. We have already seen vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, birds, and several mammals spreading infections over a broader range. Examples are viruses (dengue, Chikungunya), bacteria (Lyme), protozoans (trypanosomes), and more. Warming has affected aquatic systems (for example, Vibrio) and higher altitudes and latitudes (malaria, dengue).

Pathogenic hazards are not just moving closer to people. People are also moving closer to the pathogenic hazards, with heat waves causing people to seek refuge with water activities, for example. This increases their exposure to pathogens, such as Vibrio, hepatitis, and water-borne gastroenteritis.

Some hazards, such as warming, can even make pathogens more virulent. Heat can upregulate Vibrio’s gene expression of proteins affecting transmission, adhesion, penetration, and host injury.

Heat and rainfall can increase stagnant water, enhancing mosquitoes’ breeding and growing grounds and enabling them to transmit many more infections.

People’s capacity to respond to climate hazards can also be impaired. For example, there is a reduced concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO2 levels, which can result in malnutrition. Lower crop yields can further fuel outbreaks of measles, cholera, or Cryptosporidium. Drought also likely forces people to drink contaminated water.

Among all this bad news, the authors found a small number of cases where climate hazards reduced the risk of infection. For example, droughts reduced the breeding grounds of mosquitoes, reducing the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya. But in other cases, the density of mosquitoes increased in some pools, causing an increased local risk of infection.

Naomi Hauser, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor at UC Davis, Sacramento, told this news organization she was particularly impressed with the data visualization. “It really emphasizes the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. It makes you feel the weight of what they’re trying to represent,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Hauser said she would have liked “more emphasis on how the climate hazards interact with each other. It sort of made it sound like each of these climate hazards is in a vacuum – like when there’s floods, and that’s the problem. But there are a lot of other things ... like when we have warming and surface water temperature changes, it can also change the pH of the water and the salinity of the water, and those can also impact what we see with pathogens in the water.”

Dr. McKenzie explained one limitation: The study looked only at 10 keywords. So an example of a dust storm in Africa causing an increase in Vibrio in the United States could not be identified by this approach. “This also goes back to the scale of the problem, because we have something going on in the Sahara that’s impacting the East Coast of the United States,” he said. “And finding that link is not necessarily obvious – or at least not as obvious as [if] there [were] a hurricane and a bunch of people got sick from waterborne disease. So I think that really highlights the scale of this problem.”

Instead of looking at only one individual or group of pathogens, the study provided a much broader review of infections caused by an array of climate hazards. As Dr. McKenzie said, “no one’s actually done the work previously to really just try and get a comprehensive picture of what we might be dealing with. And so that was the goal for us.” The 58% estimate of diseases worsened by climate change is conservative, and, he says, “arguably, this is an even bigger problem than what we present.”

Dr. McKenzie concluded: “If we’re looking at the spread of some more serious or rare diseases in areas, to me then the answer is ... we need to be aggressively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s start with the source.”

Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Hauser report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New cases of COVID-19 rose among children for the fourth consecutive week, but the size of the increase declined for the second consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After new child cases jumped by 22% during the week of July 15-21, the two successive weeks have produced increases of 3.9% (July 22-29) and 1.2% (July 30-Aug. 4). The latest weekly count from all states and territories still reporting was 96,599, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report, noting that several states have stopped reporting child cases and that others are reporting every other week.

Vaccine’s summer rollout gets lukewarm reception

As a group, children aged 0-4 years have not exactly flocked to the COVID-19 vaccine. As of Aug. 2 – about 6 weeks since the vaccine was authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years – just 3.8% of those eligible had received at least one dose. Among children aged 5-11 the corresponding number on Aug. 2 was 37.4%, and for those aged 12-17 years it was 70.3%, the CDC data show.

That 3.8% of children aged less than 5 years represents almost 756,000 initial doses. That compares with over 6 million children aged 5-11 years who had received at least one dose through the first 6 weeks of their vaccination experience and over 5 million children aged 12-15, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 rose among children for the fourth consecutive week, but the size of the increase declined for the second consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After new child cases jumped by 22% during the week of July 15-21, the two successive weeks have produced increases of 3.9% (July 22-29) and 1.2% (July 30-Aug. 4). The latest weekly count from all states and territories still reporting was 96,599, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report, noting that several states have stopped reporting child cases and that others are reporting every other week.

Vaccine’s summer rollout gets lukewarm reception

As a group, children aged 0-4 years have not exactly flocked to the COVID-19 vaccine. As of Aug. 2 – about 6 weeks since the vaccine was authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years – just 3.8% of those eligible had received at least one dose. Among children aged 5-11 the corresponding number on Aug. 2 was 37.4%, and for those aged 12-17 years it was 70.3%, the CDC data show.

That 3.8% of children aged less than 5 years represents almost 756,000 initial doses. That compares with over 6 million children aged 5-11 years who had received at least one dose through the first 6 weeks of their vaccination experience and over 5 million children aged 12-15, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 rose among children for the fourth consecutive week, but the size of the increase declined for the second consecutive week, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

After new child cases jumped by 22% during the week of July 15-21, the two successive weeks have produced increases of 3.9% (July 22-29) and 1.2% (July 30-Aug. 4). The latest weekly count from all states and territories still reporting was 96,599, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report, noting that several states have stopped reporting child cases and that others are reporting every other week.

Vaccine’s summer rollout gets lukewarm reception

As a group, children aged 0-4 years have not exactly flocked to the COVID-19 vaccine. As of Aug. 2 – about 6 weeks since the vaccine was authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years – just 3.8% of those eligible had received at least one dose. Among children aged 5-11 the corresponding number on Aug. 2 was 37.4%, and for those aged 12-17 years it was 70.3%, the CDC data show.

That 3.8% of children aged less than 5 years represents almost 756,000 initial doses. That compares with over 6 million children aged 5-11 years who had received at least one dose through the first 6 weeks of their vaccination experience and over 5 million children aged 12-15, according to the COVID Data Tracker.

[email protected]

Reinfection rates are low after treating hepatitis C virus in people taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT), even among those who still inject drugs, according to a new study.

The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.

“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”

They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.

Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.

For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.

In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
 

Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions

“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.

This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
 

More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies

Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”

Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”

Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”

Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.

Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).

Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.

Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs

Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”

“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.

Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.

When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.

“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.

“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.

The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Reinfection rates are low after treating hepatitis C virus in people taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT), even among those who still inject drugs, according to a new study.

The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.

“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”

They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.

Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.

For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.

In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
 

Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions

“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.

This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
 

More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies

Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”

Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”

Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”

Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.

Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).

Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.

Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs

Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”

“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.

Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.

When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.

“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.

“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.

The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Reinfection rates are low after treating hepatitis C virus in people taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT), even among those who still inject drugs, according to a new study.

The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.

“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”

They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.

Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.

For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.

In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
 

Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions

“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.

This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
 

More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies

Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”

Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”

Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”

Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.

Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).

Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.

Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs

Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”

“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.

Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.

When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.

“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.

“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.

The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine given around the time women have surgery for precancerous cervical lesions might lead to a reduction in the risk of lesions returning, as well as other HPV-related diseases, but the effects of this remain unclear.

The authors of the new study, published in The BMJ, explained that women who have been treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) have a “lifelong residual high risk of cervical cancer and other malignancies related to HPV infection,” and some research suggests that giving a preventive HPV vaccine alongside treatment for CIN might help to “reduce the risk in these women.”

HPV vaccination is highly effective at preventing the development of precancerous cervical lesions, CIN, and in the U.K., HPV vaccination is offered to girls and boys around the age of 12 or 13.

Eluned Hughes, head of information and engagement at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, said: “Recent evidence has found that cases of cervical cancer have fallen 87% since the introduction of the HPV vaccine program in U.K. schools in 2008.”

“However, women over the age of 27, for whom the vaccine was not available, remain at increased risk of cervical cancer,” she highlighted.
 

Significant risk of bias and scarcity of data

In the study, researchers set out to explore the efficacy of HPV vaccination on the risk of HPV infection and recurrent diseases related to HPV infection in individuals undergoing local surgical treatment of preinvasive genital disease.

The systematic review and meta-analysis, led by researchers at Imperial College London, screened data from PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 31, 2021.

The researchers analyzed the results of 18 studies – two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 12 observational studies, and four post-hoc analyses of RCTs.

The authors said that the two RCTs were classified as low risk of bias, while in the observational studies and post-hoc analyses, risk of bias was moderate for seven, serious for seven, and critical for two. Average length of follow-up was 36 months.

There was a reduction of 57% in the risk of recurrence of high-grade pre-invasive disease (CIN2+) in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with those who were not vaccinated. “The effect estimate was “even more pronounced” – a relative 74% reduction – when the risk of recurrence of CIN2+ was assessed for disease related to the two high-risk HPV types – HPV16 and HPV18,” explained the authors.

However, the researchers noted that these effects are unclear because of the “scarcity of data” and the “moderate to high overall risk of bias” of the available studies.
 

Quality of evidence inconclusive – more trials needed

With regards to CIN3, the risk of recurrence of was also reduced in patients who were vaccinated, but there was a high level of uncertainty about the quality of this evidence, cautioned the authors.

Evidence was also lacking on the benefit of HPV vaccination for recurrence of vulvar, vaginal, and anal lesions, as well as genital warts.

Analysis of the post-hoc studies from randomized controlled trial data with historic vaccination at randomization before the development of the disease reported inconsistent results, the authors said.

Several study limitations were acknowledged by the authors, including that most of the studies were observational, of low to moderate quality, and with relatively short follow-up times, which they pointed out prevented assessment of long-term effects. In addition, the average age of participants was not provided in most studies, and factors such as smoking – associated with a higher risk of recurrence – were not controlled for in many studies.

“HPV vaccination might reduce the risk of recurrence of CIN, in particular when related to HPV16 or HPV18, in women treated with local excision,” they concluded. However, they cautioned that “quality of evidence indicated that the data were inconclusive.”

“Large, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness of adjuvant HPV vaccination at the time of local surgical treatment of CIN,” they recommended.

“Given that the incidence of recurrence of high-grade disease is low in quality assured national screening programs, such as in the United Kingdom, absolute risks and a cost effectiveness analysis would be important in determining the implementation strategy of HPV vaccination after treatment,” the authors said.

Ms. Hughes said that the charity was pleased to see emerging research into the value of using the HPV vaccine to prevent the recurrence of cervical cell changes. She said that the charity looks forward to seeing “further large-scale studies into the effectiveness of this method.”

In the meantime, the charity encourages all women and other people with a cervix to attend their cervical screening and for young people to have the HPV vaccination when invited, as “these are the best tools we currently have to prevent cervical cancer,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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