Pulmonary Infections

There has been no ebb in the flurry of respiratory illnesses infecting America’s youngest children. More pediatric wards across the country are announcing crises as beds reach capacity, the pediatric death toll jumped significantly in the past week, and sometimes children are being infected with more than one virus at a time.

In Oregon, for example, the governor announced an official state of emergency to help hospitals deal with the surge of respiratory viruses. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, which houses half of all pediatric ICU beds statewide, moved to “crisis mode” and said every pediatric ICU bed was full, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Last month, pediatricians nationwide called for a similar emergency declaration from the federal government to help them respond to the wave of illnesses, which include influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

“What’s concerning to us are not only the number of infections, but the severity of these infections, leading to a high number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” pediatric infectious disease expert Oscar G. Gómez-Duarte, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

Five more pediatric deaths due to the flu were logged by the CDC in the past week, bringing the total for pediatric flu deaths this season to 12. Nearly 21 per 100,000 children ages 4 and under are being hospitalized for the flu, which is double the rate for children ages 5-17. Last year at this time, fewer than 1 child under age 4 per 100,000 were being hospitalized for the flu.

RSV rates are also stunningly high.

“If we look at CDC data, the RSV hospitalization rate is 10 times higher than usual for this point in the season,” American Medical Association Vice President Andrea Garcia, JD, said in this week’s AMA podcast. “And 171 out of every 100,000 infants younger than 6 months were hospitalized with RSV for the week ending Nov. 12. That is more than double the RSV hospitalization rate for newborns last year and seven times the rate in 2018, which is the last complete season we saw before the pandemic.”

Dr. Gómez-Duarte said hospitals are admitting children with respiratory illnesses who had otherwise been healthy, and sometimes they are even seeing patients with more than one illness.

“Yes, some children are getting what we call coinfections, where they become infected with more than one virus at a time. In some instances, a child becomes initially infected with flu, begins to recover, and subsequently comes down with rhinovirus (a common cold virus), RSV, or any other respiratory virus,” he said. “These coinfections tend to be more severe than when the child just has one infection.”

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

There has been no ebb in the flurry of respiratory illnesses infecting America’s youngest children. More pediatric wards across the country are announcing crises as beds reach capacity, the pediatric death toll jumped significantly in the past week, and sometimes children are being infected with more than one virus at a time.

In Oregon, for example, the governor announced an official state of emergency to help hospitals deal with the surge of respiratory viruses. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, which houses half of all pediatric ICU beds statewide, moved to “crisis mode” and said every pediatric ICU bed was full, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Last month, pediatricians nationwide called for a similar emergency declaration from the federal government to help them respond to the wave of illnesses, which include influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

“What’s concerning to us are not only the number of infections, but the severity of these infections, leading to a high number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” pediatric infectious disease expert Oscar G. Gómez-Duarte, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

Five more pediatric deaths due to the flu were logged by the CDC in the past week, bringing the total for pediatric flu deaths this season to 12. Nearly 21 per 100,000 children ages 4 and under are being hospitalized for the flu, which is double the rate for children ages 5-17. Last year at this time, fewer than 1 child under age 4 per 100,000 were being hospitalized for the flu.

RSV rates are also stunningly high.

“If we look at CDC data, the RSV hospitalization rate is 10 times higher than usual for this point in the season,” American Medical Association Vice President Andrea Garcia, JD, said in this week’s AMA podcast. “And 171 out of every 100,000 infants younger than 6 months were hospitalized with RSV for the week ending Nov. 12. That is more than double the RSV hospitalization rate for newborns last year and seven times the rate in 2018, which is the last complete season we saw before the pandemic.”

Dr. Gómez-Duarte said hospitals are admitting children with respiratory illnesses who had otherwise been healthy, and sometimes they are even seeing patients with more than one illness.

“Yes, some children are getting what we call coinfections, where they become infected with more than one virus at a time. In some instances, a child becomes initially infected with flu, begins to recover, and subsequently comes down with rhinovirus (a common cold virus), RSV, or any other respiratory virus,” he said. “These coinfections tend to be more severe than when the child just has one infection.”

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

There has been no ebb in the flurry of respiratory illnesses infecting America’s youngest children. More pediatric wards across the country are announcing crises as beds reach capacity, the pediatric death toll jumped significantly in the past week, and sometimes children are being infected with more than one virus at a time.

In Oregon, for example, the governor announced an official state of emergency to help hospitals deal with the surge of respiratory viruses. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, which houses half of all pediatric ICU beds statewide, moved to “crisis mode” and said every pediatric ICU bed was full, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Last month, pediatricians nationwide called for a similar emergency declaration from the federal government to help them respond to the wave of illnesses, which include influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

“What’s concerning to us are not only the number of infections, but the severity of these infections, leading to a high number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” pediatric infectious disease expert Oscar G. Gómez-Duarte, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

Five more pediatric deaths due to the flu were logged by the CDC in the past week, bringing the total for pediatric flu deaths this season to 12. Nearly 21 per 100,000 children ages 4 and under are being hospitalized for the flu, which is double the rate for children ages 5-17. Last year at this time, fewer than 1 child under age 4 per 100,000 were being hospitalized for the flu.

RSV rates are also stunningly high.

“If we look at CDC data, the RSV hospitalization rate is 10 times higher than usual for this point in the season,” American Medical Association Vice President Andrea Garcia, JD, said in this week’s AMA podcast. “And 171 out of every 100,000 infants younger than 6 months were hospitalized with RSV for the week ending Nov. 12. That is more than double the RSV hospitalization rate for newborns last year and seven times the rate in 2018, which is the last complete season we saw before the pandemic.”

Dr. Gómez-Duarte said hospitals are admitting children with respiratory illnesses who had otherwise been healthy, and sometimes they are even seeing patients with more than one illness.

“Yes, some children are getting what we call coinfections, where they become infected with more than one virus at a time. In some instances, a child becomes initially infected with flu, begins to recover, and subsequently comes down with rhinovirus (a common cold virus), RSV, or any other respiratory virus,” he said. “These coinfections tend to be more severe than when the child just has one infection.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study limitations and strengths

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

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

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

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study limitations and strengths

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

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

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

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study limitations and strengths

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

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

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

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The right drug at the right time with the right dose for the right bug for the right duration.” That, said professor Kristina Crothers, MD, is the general guidance for optimizing antibiotic use (while awaiting an infectious disease consult). In her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, “Choosing newer antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia,” Dr. Crothers asked the question: “Beyond the guidelines: When should novel antimicrobials be used?”

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are the most common nosocomial infections at 22%, and are the leading cause of death attributable to hospital-acquired infections. They increase mortality by 20%-50%, with an economic burden of about $40,000 per patient. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism infections varies widely by locality, but several factors increase the likelihood: prior broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure within the past 90 days; longer hospitalization; indwelling vascular devices; tracheostomy; and ventilator dependence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as “Serious Threat” the HAP/VAP MDR organisms methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) with difficult-to-treat-resistance, and beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL). In the category of “Urgent Threat” the CDC lists: carbapenamase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (carbapenamase producing or non–carbapenemase producing), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRAB), according to Dr. Crothers who is at the University of Washington Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle.

Newer antibiotics for HAP/VAP that are still beyond the guidelines include telavancin and tedizolid as gram-positive agents, and as gram-negative ones: ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, she added.
 

Tedizolid, Dr. Crothers stated, is a novel oxazolidinone, and is an alternative to vancomycin and linezolid for gram-positive HAP/VAP. In the VITAL noninferiority study versus linezolid with 726 patients, it was noninferior to linezolid for 28-day all-cause mortality (28% vs. 26%), but did not achieve noninferiority for investigator-assessed clinical cure (56% vs. 64%).

Televancin, a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin, in the ATTAIN studies vs. vancomycin had overall similar cure rates. It is FDA-approved for S. aureus HAP/VAP but not other bacterial causes. It should be reserved for those who cannot receive vancomycin or linezolid, with normal renal function, according to Dr. Crothers. Excluded from first-line treatment of gram-positive HAP/VAP are daptomycin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a third-generation cephalosporin-plus novel beta-lactamase inhibitor has wide activity (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis, PSA and Haemophilus influenzae. It is also active against some extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), ampC beta-lactamases (AmpCs), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)–producing Enterobacterales, but not with metallo-beta-lactamases). Ceftazidime-avibactam is also indicated for HAP/VAP, and has a toxicity profile including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

In the REPROVE trial of ceftazidime-avibactam vs. meropenem for 7-14 days with 527 clinically evaluable patients (37% K. pneumoniae, 30% P. aeruginosa, and 33%-35% VAP), the clinical cure at 21-25 days post randomization was 69% vs. 73%, respectively, with similar adverse events.
 

Ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor has activity against PSA including extensively drug-resistant PSA, AmpC, and ESBL-E, but it has limited activity against Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. It is indicated for HAP/VAP, has reduced efficacy with creatine clearance of 50 mL/min or less, increases transaminases and renal impairment, and causes diarrhea. In ASPECT-NP (n = 726) ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for 8-14 days (HAP/VAP), showed a 28 day-mortality of 24% vs. 25%, respectively, with test of cure at 54% vs. 53% at 7-14 days post therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is indicated for HAP/VAP and has activity against ESBL, CRE: KPC-producing Enterobacterales, PSA including AmpC. It can cause seizures (requires caution with central nervous system disorders and renal impairment). It increases transaminases, anemia, diarrhea, and reduces potassium and sodium. In RESTORE-IMI 2 (n = 537 with HAP/VAP) it was noninferior for 28-day all-cause mortality vs. piperacillin and tazobactam (16% vs. 21%), with similar adverse events.

Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, is indicated for HAP/VAP. It has a wide spectrum of activity: ESBL, CRE, CR PSA, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter baumanii, Streptococcus.) It increases transaminases, diarrhea, and atrial fibrillation, and it reduces potassium and magnesium. In APEKS-NP versus linezolid plus cefiderocol or extended meropenem infusion (HAP/VAP n = 292; gram-negative pneumonia = 251; 60% invasive mechanical ventilation) it was noninferior for 14-day all-cause mortality (12.4% vs. 11.6%) with similar adverse events. In CREDIBLE-CR vs. best available therapy for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections, clinical cure rates were similar (50% vs. 53% in 59 HAP/VAP patients at 7 days), but with more deaths in the cefiderocol arm. Adverse events were > 90% in both groups and 34% vs. 19% died, mostly with Acinetobacter.

Meropenem-vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is approved and indicated for HAP/VAP in Europe. It has activity against MDR, Enterobacterales including CRE. Its toxicities include headache, phlebitis/infusion-site reactions and diarrhea. In TANGO-2 versus best available treatment for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (n = 77, 47 with confirmed CRE), clinical cure was increased and mortality decreased compared with best available therapy. Treatment- and renal-related adverse events were lower for meropenem-vaborbactam.

In closing, Dr. Crothers cited advice from the paper by Tamma et al. (“Rethinking how Antibiotics are Prescribed” JAMA. 2018) about the need to review findings after therapy has been initiated to confirm the pneumonia diagnosis: Novel agents should be kept in reserve in the absence of MDR risk factors for MRSA and gram-negative bacilli; therapy should be deescalated after 48-72 hours if MDR organisms are not detected; and therapy should be directed to the specific organism detected. Most HAP and VAP in adults can be treated for 7 days, she added.

“Know indications for new therapeutic agents approved for nosocomial pneumonia,” she concluded.

Dr. Crothers reported having no disclosures.

“The right drug at the right time with the right dose for the right bug for the right duration.” That, said professor Kristina Crothers, MD, is the general guidance for optimizing antibiotic use (while awaiting an infectious disease consult). In her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, “Choosing newer antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia,” Dr. Crothers asked the question: “Beyond the guidelines: When should novel antimicrobials be used?”

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are the most common nosocomial infections at 22%, and are the leading cause of death attributable to hospital-acquired infections. They increase mortality by 20%-50%, with an economic burden of about $40,000 per patient. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism infections varies widely by locality, but several factors increase the likelihood: prior broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure within the past 90 days; longer hospitalization; indwelling vascular devices; tracheostomy; and ventilator dependence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as “Serious Threat” the HAP/VAP MDR organisms methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) with difficult-to-treat-resistance, and beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL). In the category of “Urgent Threat” the CDC lists: carbapenamase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (carbapenamase producing or non–carbapenemase producing), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRAB), according to Dr. Crothers who is at the University of Washington Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle.

Newer antibiotics for HAP/VAP that are still beyond the guidelines include telavancin and tedizolid as gram-positive agents, and as gram-negative ones: ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, she added.
 

Tedizolid, Dr. Crothers stated, is a novel oxazolidinone, and is an alternative to vancomycin and linezolid for gram-positive HAP/VAP. In the VITAL noninferiority study versus linezolid with 726 patients, it was noninferior to linezolid for 28-day all-cause mortality (28% vs. 26%), but did not achieve noninferiority for investigator-assessed clinical cure (56% vs. 64%).

Televancin, a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin, in the ATTAIN studies vs. vancomycin had overall similar cure rates. It is FDA-approved for S. aureus HAP/VAP but not other bacterial causes. It should be reserved for those who cannot receive vancomycin or linezolid, with normal renal function, according to Dr. Crothers. Excluded from first-line treatment of gram-positive HAP/VAP are daptomycin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a third-generation cephalosporin-plus novel beta-lactamase inhibitor has wide activity (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis, PSA and Haemophilus influenzae. It is also active against some extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), ampC beta-lactamases (AmpCs), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)–producing Enterobacterales, but not with metallo-beta-lactamases). Ceftazidime-avibactam is also indicated for HAP/VAP, and has a toxicity profile including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

In the REPROVE trial of ceftazidime-avibactam vs. meropenem for 7-14 days with 527 clinically evaluable patients (37% K. pneumoniae, 30% P. aeruginosa, and 33%-35% VAP), the clinical cure at 21-25 days post randomization was 69% vs. 73%, respectively, with similar adverse events.
 

Ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor has activity against PSA including extensively drug-resistant PSA, AmpC, and ESBL-E, but it has limited activity against Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. It is indicated for HAP/VAP, has reduced efficacy with creatine clearance of 50 mL/min or less, increases transaminases and renal impairment, and causes diarrhea. In ASPECT-NP (n = 726) ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for 8-14 days (HAP/VAP), showed a 28 day-mortality of 24% vs. 25%, respectively, with test of cure at 54% vs. 53% at 7-14 days post therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is indicated for HAP/VAP and has activity against ESBL, CRE: KPC-producing Enterobacterales, PSA including AmpC. It can cause seizures (requires caution with central nervous system disorders and renal impairment). It increases transaminases, anemia, diarrhea, and reduces potassium and sodium. In RESTORE-IMI 2 (n = 537 with HAP/VAP) it was noninferior for 28-day all-cause mortality vs. piperacillin and tazobactam (16% vs. 21%), with similar adverse events.

Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, is indicated for HAP/VAP. It has a wide spectrum of activity: ESBL, CRE, CR PSA, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter baumanii, Streptococcus.) It increases transaminases, diarrhea, and atrial fibrillation, and it reduces potassium and magnesium. In APEKS-NP versus linezolid plus cefiderocol or extended meropenem infusion (HAP/VAP n = 292; gram-negative pneumonia = 251; 60% invasive mechanical ventilation) it was noninferior for 14-day all-cause mortality (12.4% vs. 11.6%) with similar adverse events. In CREDIBLE-CR vs. best available therapy for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections, clinical cure rates were similar (50% vs. 53% in 59 HAP/VAP patients at 7 days), but with more deaths in the cefiderocol arm. Adverse events were > 90% in both groups and 34% vs. 19% died, mostly with Acinetobacter.

Meropenem-vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is approved and indicated for HAP/VAP in Europe. It has activity against MDR, Enterobacterales including CRE. Its toxicities include headache, phlebitis/infusion-site reactions and diarrhea. In TANGO-2 versus best available treatment for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (n = 77, 47 with confirmed CRE), clinical cure was increased and mortality decreased compared with best available therapy. Treatment- and renal-related adverse events were lower for meropenem-vaborbactam.

In closing, Dr. Crothers cited advice from the paper by Tamma et al. (“Rethinking how Antibiotics are Prescribed” JAMA. 2018) about the need to review findings after therapy has been initiated to confirm the pneumonia diagnosis: Novel agents should be kept in reserve in the absence of MDR risk factors for MRSA and gram-negative bacilli; therapy should be deescalated after 48-72 hours if MDR organisms are not detected; and therapy should be directed to the specific organism detected. Most HAP and VAP in adults can be treated for 7 days, she added.

“Know indications for new therapeutic agents approved for nosocomial pneumonia,” she concluded.

Dr. Crothers reported having no disclosures.

“The right drug at the right time with the right dose for the right bug for the right duration.” That, said professor Kristina Crothers, MD, is the general guidance for optimizing antibiotic use (while awaiting an infectious disease consult). In her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, “Choosing newer antibiotics for nosocomial pneumonia,” Dr. Crothers asked the question: “Beyond the guidelines: When should novel antimicrobials be used?”

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are the most common nosocomial infections at 22%, and are the leading cause of death attributable to hospital-acquired infections. They increase mortality by 20%-50%, with an economic burden of about $40,000 per patient. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organism infections varies widely by locality, but several factors increase the likelihood: prior broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure within the past 90 days; longer hospitalization; indwelling vascular devices; tracheostomy; and ventilator dependence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as “Serious Threat” the HAP/VAP MDR organisms methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PSA) with difficult-to-treat-resistance, and beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL). In the category of “Urgent Threat” the CDC lists: carbapenamase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) (carbapenamase producing or non–carbapenemase producing), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRAB), according to Dr. Crothers who is at the University of Washington Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle.

Newer antibiotics for HAP/VAP that are still beyond the guidelines include telavancin and tedizolid as gram-positive agents, and as gram-negative ones: ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and meropenem-vaborbactam, she added.
 

Tedizolid, Dr. Crothers stated, is a novel oxazolidinone, and is an alternative to vancomycin and linezolid for gram-positive HAP/VAP. In the VITAL noninferiority study versus linezolid with 726 patients, it was noninferior to linezolid for 28-day all-cause mortality (28% vs. 26%), but did not achieve noninferiority for investigator-assessed clinical cure (56% vs. 64%).

Televancin, a semisynthetic derivative of vancomycin, in the ATTAIN studies vs. vancomycin had overall similar cure rates. It is FDA-approved for S. aureus HAP/VAP but not other bacterial causes. It should be reserved for those who cannot receive vancomycin or linezolid, with normal renal function, according to Dr. Crothers. Excluded from first-line treatment of gram-positive HAP/VAP are daptomycin, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, and tigecycline.

Ceftazidime-avibactam, a third-generation cephalosporin-plus novel beta-lactamase inhibitor has wide activity (Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, Proteus mirabilis, PSA and Haemophilus influenzae. It is also active against some extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), ampC beta-lactamases (AmpCs), and K. pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)–producing Enterobacterales, but not with metallo-beta-lactamases). Ceftazidime-avibactam is also indicated for HAP/VAP, and has a toxicity profile including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

In the REPROVE trial of ceftazidime-avibactam vs. meropenem for 7-14 days with 527 clinically evaluable patients (37% K. pneumoniae, 30% P. aeruginosa, and 33%-35% VAP), the clinical cure at 21-25 days post randomization was 69% vs. 73%, respectively, with similar adverse events.
 

Ceftolozane-tazobactam, a novel fifth-generation cephalosporin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor has activity against PSA including extensively drug-resistant PSA, AmpC, and ESBL-E, but it has limited activity against Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. It is indicated for HAP/VAP, has reduced efficacy with creatine clearance of 50 mL/min or less, increases transaminases and renal impairment, and causes diarrhea. In ASPECT-NP (n = 726) ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for 8-14 days (HAP/VAP), showed a 28 day-mortality of 24% vs. 25%, respectively, with test of cure at 54% vs. 53% at 7-14 days post therapy. Adverse events were similar between groups.

Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is indicated for HAP/VAP and has activity against ESBL, CRE: KPC-producing Enterobacterales, PSA including AmpC. It can cause seizures (requires caution with central nervous system disorders and renal impairment). It increases transaminases, anemia, diarrhea, and reduces potassium and sodium. In RESTORE-IMI 2 (n = 537 with HAP/VAP) it was noninferior for 28-day all-cause mortality vs. piperacillin and tazobactam (16% vs. 21%), with similar adverse events.

Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, is indicated for HAP/VAP. It has a wide spectrum of activity: ESBL, CRE, CR PSA, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Acinetobacter baumanii, Streptococcus.) It increases transaminases, diarrhea, and atrial fibrillation, and it reduces potassium and magnesium. In APEKS-NP versus linezolid plus cefiderocol or extended meropenem infusion (HAP/VAP n = 292; gram-negative pneumonia = 251; 60% invasive mechanical ventilation) it was noninferior for 14-day all-cause mortality (12.4% vs. 11.6%) with similar adverse events. In CREDIBLE-CR vs. best available therapy for carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections, clinical cure rates were similar (50% vs. 53% in 59 HAP/VAP patients at 7 days), but with more deaths in the cefiderocol arm. Adverse events were > 90% in both groups and 34% vs. 19% died, mostly with Acinetobacter.

Meropenem-vaborbactam, a novel beta-lactamase inhibitor plus carbapenem, is approved and indicated for HAP/VAP in Europe. It has activity against MDR, Enterobacterales including CRE. Its toxicities include headache, phlebitis/infusion-site reactions and diarrhea. In TANGO-2 versus best available treatment for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (n = 77, 47 with confirmed CRE), clinical cure was increased and mortality decreased compared with best available therapy. Treatment- and renal-related adverse events were lower for meropenem-vaborbactam.

In closing, Dr. Crothers cited advice from the paper by Tamma et al. (“Rethinking how Antibiotics are Prescribed” JAMA. 2018) about the need to review findings after therapy has been initiated to confirm the pneumonia diagnosis: Novel agents should be kept in reserve in the absence of MDR risk factors for MRSA and gram-negative bacilli; therapy should be deescalated after 48-72 hours if MDR organisms are not detected; and therapy should be directed to the specific organism detected. Most HAP and VAP in adults can be treated for 7 days, she added.

“Know indications for new therapeutic agents approved for nosocomial pneumonia,” she concluded.

Dr. Crothers reported having no disclosures.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Cold and flu season came early in 2022.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory about early, elevated respiratory disease incidence caused by multiple viruses other than SARS-CoV-2.

Interseasonal spread of respiratory syncytial virus has continued in 2022, with RSV-associated hospitalizations increasing in the late spring and continuing throughout the summer and into the fall. In October, some regions of the country were seeing RSV activity near the peak seasonal levels typically observed in December and January.

Cases of severe respiratory infection in children who tested positive for rhinovirus or enterovirus spiked in August; further testing confirmed the presence of EV-D68 in some children. Rhinovirus and enterovirus continue to circulate and are isolated in hospitalized children with respiratory illness.

In some parts of the country, influenza cases have rapidly increased ahead of what we normally anticipate. According to preliminary estimates from the CDC, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 880,000 people were sickened with flu, 420,000 people visited a health care provider for flu illness, and 6,900 people were hospitalized for flu. The cumulative hospitalization rate is higher than observed at this time of year in every previous flu season since 2010-2011. Hospitalization rates are highest in children aged 0-4 years and adults 65 years and older.

Of course, this report came as no surprise to pediatric health care providers. Many children’s hospitals had been operating at or over capacity for weeks. While a systematic assessment of the surge on children’s hospitals has not been published, anecdotally, hospitals from around the country have described record emergency department visits and inpatient census numbers. Some have set up tents or other temporary facilities to see ambulatory patients and have canceled elective surgeries because of a lack of beds.

There is no quick or easy solution to stem the tide of RSV-related or enterovirus/rhinovirus admissions, but many flu-related hospitalizations are vaccine preventable. Unfortunately, too few children are receiving influenza vaccine. As of the week ending Oct. 15, only about 22.1% of eligible children had been immunized. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC recommend that all children are vaccinated, preferably by the end of October so they have time to develop immunity before influenza starts circulating. As it stands now, the majority of the nation’s children are facing a flu season without the benefits of vaccine.

There is still time to take steps to prevent this flu season from becoming one of the worst in recent memory. A strong provider recommendation for influenza vaccine is consistently associated with higher rates of vaccine acceptance. We need to recommend influenza vaccine to all eligible patients at every visit and in every setting. It will help if we can say it like we mean it. Some of us are tired of debating the merits of COVID-19 vaccine with families and may be leery of additional debates about flu. Some of us may just be tired, as many practices have already expanded office hours to care for the influx of kids with respiratory illness. On the heels of two atypical flu seasons, a few of us may be quietly complacent about the importance of flu vaccines for children.

Anyone in need of a little motivation should check out a paper recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that reinforces the value of flu vaccine, even in a year when there is a poor match between the vaccine and circulating viruses.

The 2019-2020 flu season was a bad flu season for children. Two antigenically drifted influenza viruses predominated and cases of influenza soared, resulting in the largest influenza epidemic in children in the United States since 1992. Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study investigators used a test-negative design to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing critical and life-threatening influenza in children during that season. The good news: vaccination reduced the risk of critical influenza by 78% against H1N1pdm09 viruses that were well-matched to vaccine and by 47% against mismatched viruses. Vaccination was estimated to be 75% protective against antigenically drifted B-Victoria viruses. Overall vaccine effectiveness against critical illness from any influenza virus was 63% (95% confidence interval, 38%-78%).

While it might be tempting to attribute suboptimal immunization rates to vaccine hesitancy, ready availability remains an issue for some families. We need to eliminate barriers to access. While the AAP continues to emphasize immunization in the medical home, especially for the youngest infants, the 2022 policy statement suggests that vaccinating children in schools, pharmacies, and other nontraditional settings could improve immunization rates. To the extent feasible, we need to work with partners to support community-based initiatives and promote these to families who struggle to make it into the office.

Improving access is just one potential way to reduce health disparities related to influenza and influenza vaccination. Over 10 influenza seasons, higher rates of influenza-associated hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions were observed in Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people. These disparities were highest in children aged younger than 4 years and influenza-associated in-hospital deaths were three- to fourfold higher in Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, compared with White children. The reason for the disparities isn’t completely clear but increasing immunization rates may be part of the solution. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, flu immunization rates in Black children (51.6%) were lower than those seen in White (57.4%) and Hispanic children (58.9%).

The AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023, highlight a variety of evidence-based strategies to increase influenza immunization rates. These may provide a little inspiration for clinicians looking to try a new approach. If you wish to share your experience with increasing influenza immunization rates in your practice setting, please email me at [email protected].

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead.

Cold and flu season came early in 2022.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory about early, elevated respiratory disease incidence caused by multiple viruses other than SARS-CoV-2.

Interseasonal spread of respiratory syncytial virus has continued in 2022, with RSV-associated hospitalizations increasing in the late spring and continuing throughout the summer and into the fall. In October, some regions of the country were seeing RSV activity near the peak seasonal levels typically observed in December and January.

Cases of severe respiratory infection in children who tested positive for rhinovirus or enterovirus spiked in August; further testing confirmed the presence of EV-D68 in some children. Rhinovirus and enterovirus continue to circulate and are isolated in hospitalized children with respiratory illness.

In some parts of the country, influenza cases have rapidly increased ahead of what we normally anticipate. According to preliminary estimates from the CDC, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 880,000 people were sickened with flu, 420,000 people visited a health care provider for flu illness, and 6,900 people were hospitalized for flu. The cumulative hospitalization rate is higher than observed at this time of year in every previous flu season since 2010-2011. Hospitalization rates are highest in children aged 0-4 years and adults 65 years and older.

Of course, this report came as no surprise to pediatric health care providers. Many children’s hospitals had been operating at or over capacity for weeks. While a systematic assessment of the surge on children’s hospitals has not been published, anecdotally, hospitals from around the country have described record emergency department visits and inpatient census numbers. Some have set up tents or other temporary facilities to see ambulatory patients and have canceled elective surgeries because of a lack of beds.

There is no quick or easy solution to stem the tide of RSV-related or enterovirus/rhinovirus admissions, but many flu-related hospitalizations are vaccine preventable. Unfortunately, too few children are receiving influenza vaccine. As of the week ending Oct. 15, only about 22.1% of eligible children had been immunized. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC recommend that all children are vaccinated, preferably by the end of October so they have time to develop immunity before influenza starts circulating. As it stands now, the majority of the nation’s children are facing a flu season without the benefits of vaccine.

There is still time to take steps to prevent this flu season from becoming one of the worst in recent memory. A strong provider recommendation for influenza vaccine is consistently associated with higher rates of vaccine acceptance. We need to recommend influenza vaccine to all eligible patients at every visit and in every setting. It will help if we can say it like we mean it. Some of us are tired of debating the merits of COVID-19 vaccine with families and may be leery of additional debates about flu. Some of us may just be tired, as many practices have already expanded office hours to care for the influx of kids with respiratory illness. On the heels of two atypical flu seasons, a few of us may be quietly complacent about the importance of flu vaccines for children.

Anyone in need of a little motivation should check out a paper recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that reinforces the value of flu vaccine, even in a year when there is a poor match between the vaccine and circulating viruses.

The 2019-2020 flu season was a bad flu season for children. Two antigenically drifted influenza viruses predominated and cases of influenza soared, resulting in the largest influenza epidemic in children in the United States since 1992. Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study investigators used a test-negative design to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing critical and life-threatening influenza in children during that season. The good news: vaccination reduced the risk of critical influenza by 78% against H1N1pdm09 viruses that were well-matched to vaccine and by 47% against mismatched viruses. Vaccination was estimated to be 75% protective against antigenically drifted B-Victoria viruses. Overall vaccine effectiveness against critical illness from any influenza virus was 63% (95% confidence interval, 38%-78%).

While it might be tempting to attribute suboptimal immunization rates to vaccine hesitancy, ready availability remains an issue for some families. We need to eliminate barriers to access. While the AAP continues to emphasize immunization in the medical home, especially for the youngest infants, the 2022 policy statement suggests that vaccinating children in schools, pharmacies, and other nontraditional settings could improve immunization rates. To the extent feasible, we need to work with partners to support community-based initiatives and promote these to families who struggle to make it into the office.

Improving access is just one potential way to reduce health disparities related to influenza and influenza vaccination. Over 10 influenza seasons, higher rates of influenza-associated hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions were observed in Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people. These disparities were highest in children aged younger than 4 years and influenza-associated in-hospital deaths were three- to fourfold higher in Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, compared with White children. The reason for the disparities isn’t completely clear but increasing immunization rates may be part of the solution. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, flu immunization rates in Black children (51.6%) were lower than those seen in White (57.4%) and Hispanic children (58.9%).

The AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023, highlight a variety of evidence-based strategies to increase influenza immunization rates. These may provide a little inspiration for clinicians looking to try a new approach. If you wish to share your experience with increasing influenza immunization rates in your practice setting, please email me at [email protected].

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead.

Cold and flu season came early in 2022.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory about early, elevated respiratory disease incidence caused by multiple viruses other than SARS-CoV-2.

Interseasonal spread of respiratory syncytial virus has continued in 2022, with RSV-associated hospitalizations increasing in the late spring and continuing throughout the summer and into the fall. In October, some regions of the country were seeing RSV activity near the peak seasonal levels typically observed in December and January.

Cases of severe respiratory infection in children who tested positive for rhinovirus or enterovirus spiked in August; further testing confirmed the presence of EV-D68 in some children. Rhinovirus and enterovirus continue to circulate and are isolated in hospitalized children with respiratory illness.

In some parts of the country, influenza cases have rapidly increased ahead of what we normally anticipate. According to preliminary estimates from the CDC, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 880,000 people were sickened with flu, 420,000 people visited a health care provider for flu illness, and 6,900 people were hospitalized for flu. The cumulative hospitalization rate is higher than observed at this time of year in every previous flu season since 2010-2011. Hospitalization rates are highest in children aged 0-4 years and adults 65 years and older.

Of course, this report came as no surprise to pediatric health care providers. Many children’s hospitals had been operating at or over capacity for weeks. While a systematic assessment of the surge on children’s hospitals has not been published, anecdotally, hospitals from around the country have described record emergency department visits and inpatient census numbers. Some have set up tents or other temporary facilities to see ambulatory patients and have canceled elective surgeries because of a lack of beds.

There is no quick or easy solution to stem the tide of RSV-related or enterovirus/rhinovirus admissions, but many flu-related hospitalizations are vaccine preventable. Unfortunately, too few children are receiving influenza vaccine. As of the week ending Oct. 15, only about 22.1% of eligible children had been immunized. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC recommend that all children are vaccinated, preferably by the end of October so they have time to develop immunity before influenza starts circulating. As it stands now, the majority of the nation’s children are facing a flu season without the benefits of vaccine.

There is still time to take steps to prevent this flu season from becoming one of the worst in recent memory. A strong provider recommendation for influenza vaccine is consistently associated with higher rates of vaccine acceptance. We need to recommend influenza vaccine to all eligible patients at every visit and in every setting. It will help if we can say it like we mean it. Some of us are tired of debating the merits of COVID-19 vaccine with families and may be leery of additional debates about flu. Some of us may just be tired, as many practices have already expanded office hours to care for the influx of kids with respiratory illness. On the heels of two atypical flu seasons, a few of us may be quietly complacent about the importance of flu vaccines for children.

Anyone in need of a little motivation should check out a paper recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that reinforces the value of flu vaccine, even in a year when there is a poor match between the vaccine and circulating viruses.

The 2019-2020 flu season was a bad flu season for children. Two antigenically drifted influenza viruses predominated and cases of influenza soared, resulting in the largest influenza epidemic in children in the United States since 1992. Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study investigators used a test-negative design to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing critical and life-threatening influenza in children during that season. The good news: vaccination reduced the risk of critical influenza by 78% against H1N1pdm09 viruses that were well-matched to vaccine and by 47% against mismatched viruses. Vaccination was estimated to be 75% protective against antigenically drifted B-Victoria viruses. Overall vaccine effectiveness against critical illness from any influenza virus was 63% (95% confidence interval, 38%-78%).

While it might be tempting to attribute suboptimal immunization rates to vaccine hesitancy, ready availability remains an issue for some families. We need to eliminate barriers to access. While the AAP continues to emphasize immunization in the medical home, especially for the youngest infants, the 2022 policy statement suggests that vaccinating children in schools, pharmacies, and other nontraditional settings could improve immunization rates. To the extent feasible, we need to work with partners to support community-based initiatives and promote these to families who struggle to make it into the office.

Improving access is just one potential way to reduce health disparities related to influenza and influenza vaccination. Over 10 influenza seasons, higher rates of influenza-associated hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions were observed in Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people. These disparities were highest in children aged younger than 4 years and influenza-associated in-hospital deaths were three- to fourfold higher in Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, compared with White children. The reason for the disparities isn’t completely clear but increasing immunization rates may be part of the solution. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, flu immunization rates in Black children (51.6%) were lower than those seen in White (57.4%) and Hispanic children (58.9%).

The AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023, highlight a variety of evidence-based strategies to increase influenza immunization rates. These may provide a little inspiration for clinicians looking to try a new approach. If you wish to share your experience with increasing influenza immunization rates in your practice setting, please email me at [email protected].

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of an early surge in respiratory disease caused by multiple viruses. As influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and rhinovirus/enterovirus simultaneously circulate, the agency cautioned that this confluence of viral activity could strain the health care system, according to a CDC Health Network Alert advisory issued Nov. 4.

“This early increase in disease incidence highlights the importance of optimizing respiratory virus prevention and treatment measures, including prompt vaccination and antiviral treatment,” the alert stated.

The CDC reports that RSV activity is increasing nationally, but in some areas – such as the South and Mountain West – cases appear to be trending downward.

Influenza cases continue to climb, with the virus activity being the highest in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and the south-central West Coast, according to CDC data. “In fact, we’re seeing the highest influenza hospitalization rates going back a decade,” said José Romero, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, during a press briefing. The agency estimates that there have been 1.6 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations, and 730 deaths from the flu so far this season. As of Nov. 4, there have been two pediatric deaths.

COVID-19 cases appear to have plateaued in the past three weeks, Dr. Romero said; however, the CDC expects that there will be “high-level circulation of SARS-CoV-2 this fall and winter,” the health alert stated.

The CDC advised that all eligible individuals aged 6-months or older should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. To protect against RSV-hospitalization, high-risk children should receive the monoclonal antibody drug palivizumab (Synagis). High-risk children include infants born before 29 weeks, children younger than age 2 with chronic lung disease or hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, and children with suppressed immune systems or neuromuscular disorders.

Any patient with confirmed or suspected flu who is hospitalized, at higher risk for influenza complications, or who has a severe or progressive illness should be treated as early as possible with antivirals, such as oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with increased risk of complications should also be treated with antivirals, such as nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) or remdesivir (Veklury).

Patients should also be reminded to wash their hands frequently, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home when sick, and avoid close contact with people who are sick, the CDC advised.

“There’s no doubt that we will face some challenges this winter,” said Dawn O’Connell, HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, “but it’s important to remember that RSV and flu are not new, and we have safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of an early surge in respiratory disease caused by multiple viruses. As influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and rhinovirus/enterovirus simultaneously circulate, the agency cautioned that this confluence of viral activity could strain the health care system, according to a CDC Health Network Alert advisory issued Nov. 4.

“This early increase in disease incidence highlights the importance of optimizing respiratory virus prevention and treatment measures, including prompt vaccination and antiviral treatment,” the alert stated.

The CDC reports that RSV activity is increasing nationally, but in some areas – such as the South and Mountain West – cases appear to be trending downward.

Influenza cases continue to climb, with the virus activity being the highest in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and the south-central West Coast, according to CDC data. “In fact, we’re seeing the highest influenza hospitalization rates going back a decade,” said José Romero, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, during a press briefing. The agency estimates that there have been 1.6 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations, and 730 deaths from the flu so far this season. As of Nov. 4, there have been two pediatric deaths.

COVID-19 cases appear to have plateaued in the past three weeks, Dr. Romero said; however, the CDC expects that there will be “high-level circulation of SARS-CoV-2 this fall and winter,” the health alert stated.

The CDC advised that all eligible individuals aged 6-months or older should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. To protect against RSV-hospitalization, high-risk children should receive the monoclonal antibody drug palivizumab (Synagis). High-risk children include infants born before 29 weeks, children younger than age 2 with chronic lung disease or hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, and children with suppressed immune systems or neuromuscular disorders.

Any patient with confirmed or suspected flu who is hospitalized, at higher risk for influenza complications, or who has a severe or progressive illness should be treated as early as possible with antivirals, such as oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with increased risk of complications should also be treated with antivirals, such as nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) or remdesivir (Veklury).

Patients should also be reminded to wash their hands frequently, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home when sick, and avoid close contact with people who are sick, the CDC advised.

“There’s no doubt that we will face some challenges this winter,” said Dawn O’Connell, HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, “but it’s important to remember that RSV and flu are not new, and we have safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning of an early surge in respiratory disease caused by multiple viruses. As influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), SARS-CoV-2, and rhinovirus/enterovirus simultaneously circulate, the agency cautioned that this confluence of viral activity could strain the health care system, according to a CDC Health Network Alert advisory issued Nov. 4.

“This early increase in disease incidence highlights the importance of optimizing respiratory virus prevention and treatment measures, including prompt vaccination and antiviral treatment,” the alert stated.

The CDC reports that RSV activity is increasing nationally, but in some areas – such as the South and Mountain West – cases appear to be trending downward.

Influenza cases continue to climb, with the virus activity being the highest in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and the south-central West Coast, according to CDC data. “In fact, we’re seeing the highest influenza hospitalization rates going back a decade,” said José Romero, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, during a press briefing. The agency estimates that there have been 1.6 million illnesses, 13,000 hospitalizations, and 730 deaths from the flu so far this season. As of Nov. 4, there have been two pediatric deaths.

COVID-19 cases appear to have plateaued in the past three weeks, Dr. Romero said; however, the CDC expects that there will be “high-level circulation of SARS-CoV-2 this fall and winter,” the health alert stated.

The CDC advised that all eligible individuals aged 6-months or older should be vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. To protect against RSV-hospitalization, high-risk children should receive the monoclonal antibody drug palivizumab (Synagis). High-risk children include infants born before 29 weeks, children younger than age 2 with chronic lung disease or hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, and children with suppressed immune systems or neuromuscular disorders.

Any patient with confirmed or suspected flu who is hospitalized, at higher risk for influenza complications, or who has a severe or progressive illness should be treated as early as possible with antivirals, such as oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu).

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with increased risk of complications should also be treated with antivirals, such as nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid) or remdesivir (Veklury).

Patients should also be reminded to wash their hands frequently, cover coughs and sneezes, stay home when sick, and avoid close contact with people who are sick, the CDC advised.

“There’s no doubt that we will face some challenges this winter,” said Dawn O’Connell, HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, “but it’s important to remember that RSV and flu are not new, and we have safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu.”

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

A man in England who was infected with an early strain of COVID-19 was finally cleared 411 days after first testing positive, according to experts in the United Kingdom. 

The man was treated with a mixture of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, King’s College London said in a news release.

The man, 59, tested positive in December 2020 and tested negative in January 2022. He had a weakened immune system because of a previous kidney transplant. He received three doses of vaccine and his symptoms lessened, but he kept testing positive for COVID.

To find out if the man had a persistent infection or had been infected several times, doctors did a genetic analysis of the virus.

“This revealed that the patient’s infection was a persistent infection with an early COVID variant – a variation of the original Wuhan variant that was dominant in the United Kingdom in the later months of 2020. Analysis found the patient’s virus had multiple mutations since he was first infected,” King’s College said.

The doctors treated him with a Regeneron treatment that is no longer widely used because it’s not effective against newer COVID variants.

“Some new variants of the virus are resistant to all the antibody treatments available in the United Kingdom and Europe. Some people with weakened immune systems are still at risk of severe illness and becoming persistently infected. We are still working to understand the best way to protect and treat them,” Luke Snell, MD, from the King’s College School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, said in the news release.

This is one of the longest known cases of COVID infection. Another man in England was infected with COVID for 505 days before his death, which King’s College said was the longest known COVID infection.

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

A man in England who was infected with an early strain of COVID-19 was finally cleared 411 days after first testing positive, according to experts in the United Kingdom. 

The man was treated with a mixture of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, King’s College London said in a news release.

The man, 59, tested positive in December 2020 and tested negative in January 2022. He had a weakened immune system because of a previous kidney transplant. He received three doses of vaccine and his symptoms lessened, but he kept testing positive for COVID.

To find out if the man had a persistent infection or had been infected several times, doctors did a genetic analysis of the virus.

“This revealed that the patient’s infection was a persistent infection with an early COVID variant – a variation of the original Wuhan variant that was dominant in the United Kingdom in the later months of 2020. Analysis found the patient’s virus had multiple mutations since he was first infected,” King’s College said.

The doctors treated him with a Regeneron treatment that is no longer widely used because it’s not effective against newer COVID variants.

“Some new variants of the virus are resistant to all the antibody treatments available in the United Kingdom and Europe. Some people with weakened immune systems are still at risk of severe illness and becoming persistently infected. We are still working to understand the best way to protect and treat them,” Luke Snell, MD, from the King’s College School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, said in the news release.

This is one of the longest known cases of COVID infection. Another man in England was infected with COVID for 505 days before his death, which King’s College said was the longest known COVID infection.

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

A man in England who was infected with an early strain of COVID-19 was finally cleared 411 days after first testing positive, according to experts in the United Kingdom. 

The man was treated with a mixture of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, King’s College London said in a news release.

The man, 59, tested positive in December 2020 and tested negative in January 2022. He had a weakened immune system because of a previous kidney transplant. He received three doses of vaccine and his symptoms lessened, but he kept testing positive for COVID.

To find out if the man had a persistent infection or had been infected several times, doctors did a genetic analysis of the virus.

“This revealed that the patient’s infection was a persistent infection with an early COVID variant – a variation of the original Wuhan variant that was dominant in the United Kingdom in the later months of 2020. Analysis found the patient’s virus had multiple mutations since he was first infected,” King’s College said.

The doctors treated him with a Regeneron treatment that is no longer widely used because it’s not effective against newer COVID variants.

“Some new variants of the virus are resistant to all the antibody treatments available in the United Kingdom and Europe. Some people with weakened immune systems are still at risk of severe illness and becoming persistently infected. We are still working to understand the best way to protect and treat them,” Luke Snell, MD, from the King’s College School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, said in the news release.

This is one of the longest known cases of COVID infection. Another man in England was infected with COVID for 505 days before his death, which King’s College said was the longest known COVID infection.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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