Vaccines

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Six times as many cases of pertussis were reported in the United States for the week ending November 16, 2024, as the same week in 2023, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The numbers reflect a return to prepandemic trends, but overall, pertussis cases for 2024 so far have surpassed those seen prior to the pandemic in 2019, according to the CDC.

Of the 434 cases reported for the week ending November 16, 2024, a majority (109) occurred in the East North Central region, mostly in Ohio (93). Another 70 cases occurred in the West North Central region, with 32 cases and 37 cases in Missouri and Nebraska, respectively.

None of the 75 cases in the Middle Atlantic region occurred in New Jersey or New York City; 38 were reported elsewhere in New York, and 37 in Pennsylvania. The South Atlantic region reported 55 cases, including 29 in Florida. The East South Central and West South Central regions reported 11 and 20 cases, respectively. The Mountain and Pacific regions reported 31 (20 in Arizona) and 47 (20 in Washington State) cases, respectively.

The CDC tracks pertussis cases through a national surveillance system, but many cases are likely unrecognized and unreported, according to the CDC.

Although vaccines for pertussis (whooping cough) provide protection, their effectiveness decreases over time, and the CDC expects rates to increase in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as case levels rebound with the lifting of pandemic mitigation strategies such as masking and remote learning.

Recent CDC data reported by Medscape Medical News showed an association between lower vaccination rates and 2024’s uptick in pertussis cases.

 

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

Six times as many cases of pertussis were reported in the United States for the week ending November 16, 2024, as the same week in 2023, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The numbers reflect a return to prepandemic trends, but overall, pertussis cases for 2024 so far have surpassed those seen prior to the pandemic in 2019, according to the CDC.

Of the 434 cases reported for the week ending November 16, 2024, a majority (109) occurred in the East North Central region, mostly in Ohio (93). Another 70 cases occurred in the West North Central region, with 32 cases and 37 cases in Missouri and Nebraska, respectively.

None of the 75 cases in the Middle Atlantic region occurred in New Jersey or New York City; 38 were reported elsewhere in New York, and 37 in Pennsylvania. The South Atlantic region reported 55 cases, including 29 in Florida. The East South Central and West South Central regions reported 11 and 20 cases, respectively. The Mountain and Pacific regions reported 31 (20 in Arizona) and 47 (20 in Washington State) cases, respectively.

The CDC tracks pertussis cases through a national surveillance system, but many cases are likely unrecognized and unreported, according to the CDC.

Although vaccines for pertussis (whooping cough) provide protection, their effectiveness decreases over time, and the CDC expects rates to increase in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as case levels rebound with the lifting of pandemic mitigation strategies such as masking and remote learning.

Recent CDC data reported by Medscape Medical News showed an association between lower vaccination rates and 2024’s uptick in pertussis cases.

 

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

Six times as many cases of pertussis were reported in the United States for the week ending November 16, 2024, as the same week in 2023, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The numbers reflect a return to prepandemic trends, but overall, pertussis cases for 2024 so far have surpassed those seen prior to the pandemic in 2019, according to the CDC.

Of the 434 cases reported for the week ending November 16, 2024, a majority (109) occurred in the East North Central region, mostly in Ohio (93). Another 70 cases occurred in the West North Central region, with 32 cases and 37 cases in Missouri and Nebraska, respectively.

None of the 75 cases in the Middle Atlantic region occurred in New Jersey or New York City; 38 were reported elsewhere in New York, and 37 in Pennsylvania. The South Atlantic region reported 55 cases, including 29 in Florida. The East South Central and West South Central regions reported 11 and 20 cases, respectively. The Mountain and Pacific regions reported 31 (20 in Arizona) and 47 (20 in Washington State) cases, respectively.

The CDC tracks pertussis cases through a national surveillance system, but many cases are likely unrecognized and unreported, according to the CDC.

Although vaccines for pertussis (whooping cough) provide protection, their effectiveness decreases over time, and the CDC expects rates to increase in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations as case levels rebound with the lifting of pandemic mitigation strategies such as masking and remote learning.

Recent CDC data reported by Medscape Medical News showed an association between lower vaccination rates and 2024’s uptick in pertussis cases.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Administering the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine during the active phase of COVID-19 may help protect against the development of long COVID.

METHODOLOGY:

• A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
• Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
• Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
• The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
• At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
• At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
• Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Administering the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine during the active phase of COVID-19 may help protect against the development of long COVID.

METHODOLOGY:

• A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
• Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
• Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
• The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
• At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
• At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
• Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Administering the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine during the active phase of COVID-19 may help protect against the development of long COVID.

METHODOLOGY:

• A phase 3 clinical trial initiated in early 2020 investigated the effect of the BCG vaccine injected during active infection on COVID-19 progression in adults with mild or moderate COVID-19. The current study summarizes the 6- and 12-month follow-up data with a focus on long-COVID symptoms.
• Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were randomly assigned to receive either 0.1 mL of intradermal BCG (n = 191) or 0.9% saline placebo (n = 202) within 14 days of symptom onset and were followed up at 7, 14, 21, and 45 days and at 6 and 12 months postinjection.
• Overall, 157 BCG (median age, 40 years; 54.1% women) and 142 placebo (median age, 41 years; 65.5% women) recipients completed the 6-month follow-up, and 97 BCG (median age, 37 years; 49.5% women) and 95 placebo (median age, 40 years; 67.4% women) recipients completed the 12-month follow-up.
• The researchers primarily assessed the effect of the BCG vaccine on the development of the symptoms of long COVID at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Hearing problems were less frequent among BCG recipients at 6 months compared with those who received placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.045-1.0; P = .044).
• At 12 months, participants who received the BCG vaccine exhibited fewer issues with sleeping (P = .027), concentration (P = .009), memory (P = .009), and vision (P = .022) along with a lower long-COVID score (one-sided Wilcoxon test, P = .002) than those who received placebo.
• At 6 months, BCG demonstrated a sex-specific paradoxical effect on hair loss, decreasing it in men (P = .031), while causing a slight, though statistically nonsignificant, increase in women.
• Male sex was the strongest predictive factor for long COVID, cognitive dysfunction, and cardiopulmonary scores at both follow-up assessments.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that BCG immunotherapy for an existing ailment may be superior to prophylaxis in healthy individuals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mehrsa Jalalizadeh and Keini Buosi, UroScience, State University of Campinas, Unicamp, São Paulo, Brazil. It was published online on November 19, 2024, in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Previous mycobacterial exposure was not tested among the study participants. A notable loss to follow-up, particularly at 12 months, may have introduced bias into the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Federal Government of Brazil, the General Coordination of the National Immunization Program, Ministry of Health (Brazil), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Research Productivity. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one in five people who live in the same household as an individual infected with the influenza virus develop secondary infections within a 7-day follow-up period, with children facing the highest risk. Vaccination lowers the risk of contracting the infection among household contacts.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of data between 2017 and 2020 to determine the estimated effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing secondary infections in household contacts.
• Overall, 699 people were primary contacts, or the first in a household to get infected (median age, 13 years; 54.5% women); there were 1581 household contacts (median age, 31 years; 52.7% women), and both groups were followed for 7 days.
• Participants collected daily symptom diaries and nasal swabs during the follow-up period.
• Participants also submitted their history of influenza vaccination; 50.1% of household contacts had received a shot at least 14 days before the first case of disease onset in the household.
• The risk for secondary infection and vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection among household contacts was estimated overall and by virus type, subtype, and lineage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly half (48.2%) of primary cases were from children and teens between ages 5 and 17 years.
• Overall, 22% household contacts had laboratory-confirmed influenza during follow-up, of which 7% were asymptomatic.
• The overall risk for secondary infection among unvaccinated household contacts was 18.8%, with the highest risk observed among children younger than age 5 years (29.9%).
• The overall effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing laboratory-confirmed infections among household contacts was 21% (95% CI, 1.4%-36.7%).
• The vaccine demonstrated specific protection against influenza B infection (56.4%; 95% CI, 30.1%-72.8%), particularly among those between ages 5 and 17 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although complementary preventive strategies to prevent influenza in household settings may be considered, seasonal influenza vaccination is the primary strategy recommended for prevention of influenza illness and its complications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carlos G. Grijalva, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, and was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The recruitment of infected individuals from clinical testing pools may have limited the generalizability of the risk for secondary infection in households in which the primary case had a milder or asymptomatic infection. The study was unable to assess the effectiveness of specific vaccine formulations, such as those receiving high doses. The stratification of estimates by influenza subtypes and lineages was challenging because of small cell sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and authors reported support from grants from the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases. Some authors reported contracts, receiving personal fees and grants from the CDC and various pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and Sanofi.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one in five people who live in the same household as an individual infected with the influenza virus develop secondary infections within a 7-day follow-up period, with children facing the highest risk. Vaccination lowers the risk of contracting the infection among household contacts.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of data between 2017 and 2020 to determine the estimated effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing secondary infections in household contacts.
• Overall, 699 people were primary contacts, or the first in a household to get infected (median age, 13 years; 54.5% women); there were 1581 household contacts (median age, 31 years; 52.7% women), and both groups were followed for 7 days.
• Participants collected daily symptom diaries and nasal swabs during the follow-up period.
• Participants also submitted their history of influenza vaccination; 50.1% of household contacts had received a shot at least 14 days before the first case of disease onset in the household.
• The risk for secondary infection and vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection among household contacts was estimated overall and by virus type, subtype, and lineage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly half (48.2%) of primary cases were from children and teens between ages 5 and 17 years.
• Overall, 22% household contacts had laboratory-confirmed influenza during follow-up, of which 7% were asymptomatic.
• The overall risk for secondary infection among unvaccinated household contacts was 18.8%, with the highest risk observed among children younger than age 5 years (29.9%).
• The overall effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing laboratory-confirmed infections among household contacts was 21% (95% CI, 1.4%-36.7%).
• The vaccine demonstrated specific protection against influenza B infection (56.4%; 95% CI, 30.1%-72.8%), particularly among those between ages 5 and 17 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although complementary preventive strategies to prevent influenza in household settings may be considered, seasonal influenza vaccination is the primary strategy recommended for prevention of influenza illness and its complications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carlos G. Grijalva, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, and was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The recruitment of infected individuals from clinical testing pools may have limited the generalizability of the risk for secondary infection in households in which the primary case had a milder or asymptomatic infection. The study was unable to assess the effectiveness of specific vaccine formulations, such as those receiving high doses. The stratification of estimates by influenza subtypes and lineages was challenging because of small cell sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and authors reported support from grants from the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases. Some authors reported contracts, receiving personal fees and grants from the CDC and various pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and Sanofi.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one in five people who live in the same household as an individual infected with the influenza virus develop secondary infections within a 7-day follow-up period, with children facing the highest risk. Vaccination lowers the risk of contracting the infection among household contacts.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study of data between 2017 and 2020 to determine the estimated effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing secondary infections in household contacts.
• Overall, 699 people were primary contacts, or the first in a household to get infected (median age, 13 years; 54.5% women); there were 1581 household contacts (median age, 31 years; 52.7% women), and both groups were followed for 7 days.
• Participants collected daily symptom diaries and nasal swabs during the follow-up period.
• Participants also submitted their history of influenza vaccination; 50.1% of household contacts had received a shot at least 14 days before the first case of disease onset in the household.
• The risk for secondary infection and vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection among household contacts was estimated overall and by virus type, subtype, and lineage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly half (48.2%) of primary cases were from children and teens between ages 5 and 17 years.
• Overall, 22% household contacts had laboratory-confirmed influenza during follow-up, of which 7% were asymptomatic.
• The overall risk for secondary infection among unvaccinated household contacts was 18.8%, with the highest risk observed among children younger than age 5 years (29.9%).
• The overall effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing laboratory-confirmed infections among household contacts was 21% (95% CI, 1.4%-36.7%).
• The vaccine demonstrated specific protection against influenza B infection (56.4%; 95% CI, 30.1%-72.8%), particularly among those between ages 5 and 17 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although complementary preventive strategies to prevent influenza in household settings may be considered, seasonal influenza vaccination is the primary strategy recommended for prevention of influenza illness and its complications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carlos G. Grijalva, MD, MPH, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, and was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The recruitment of infected individuals from clinical testing pools may have limited the generalizability of the risk for secondary infection in households in which the primary case had a milder or asymptomatic infection. The study was unable to assess the effectiveness of specific vaccine formulations, such as those receiving high doses. The stratification of estimates by influenza subtypes and lineages was challenging because of small cell sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and authors reported support from grants from the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases. Some authors reported contracts, receiving personal fees and grants from the CDC and various pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and Sanofi.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This news organization recently spoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about what providers need to know regarding recommendations for influenza vaccination in the United States.

Text has been edited for length. 

 

Are there any updates to this season’s influenza vaccine or vaccine recommendations?

Yes, we have updates to both the vaccine and the vaccine recommendations this year. Typically we have some changes each year, and this year there are two main changes in the recommendations. One relates to the composition of the vaccine for this season, and the other is a new recommendation for adult solid organ transplant recipients. 

We typically have changes in the vaccine composition each season. For most seasons, one or more parts of the vaccine will change, but this year is a little different in that all of the vaccines available in the US for the 2024-2025 season are going to be three-virus, or trivalent, vaccines. They are going to be formulated to protect against three viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and an influenza B/Victoria lineage virus. 

The reason for this change is that since the 2013-2014 season through the 2023-2024 season, we had quadrivalent vaccines that were available in the US that contained four viruses. Those vaccines contained a second influenza B virus from the Yamagata lineage (B viruses come from two main lineages).

The reason for the change to trivalent vaccines this season is that influenza B/Yamagata viruses have not been detected in global surveillance since March 2020, and so their inclusion is no longer warranted. So this season, all of the vaccines available in the US are going to be trivalent.

In addition to that change, we have an update in the influenza A(H3N2) component of the vaccine compared with last season.

The second change concerning adult solid organ transplant recipients is that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18-64 years can receive as acceptable options either the high-dose inactivated vaccine or the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine without a preference over other age appropriate, inactivated, or recombinant vaccines.

Those vaccines are both formulated with features intended to make them more immunogenic — ie, promote a stronger immune response — and there are data for immunogenicity that suggest they could be more immunogenic in that population.

 

Who needs an influenza vaccine this season?

That recommendation is the same as it’s been for a number of years, which is that everybody aged 6 months or older is recommended to get a flu vaccine, with some rare exceptions, mainly concerning contraindications to vaccination. 

Contraindications are detailed in the ACIP flu statement each year, and they’re relatively uncommon conditions overall, so most people are recommended, if they’re in that age group 6 months and up, to get an annual flu vaccine.

Are there groups for whom influenza vaccination is especially important?

Yes. While influenza vaccination is recommended for everybody in that age group 6 months and up — and in truth, we can never really predict who’s going to get severely ill — some people are more likely to be at risk of having serious illness or hospitalization. Those people include adults aged 65 years or older; young children; people with certain chronic health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes; and people from some racial and ethnic groups.

 

Are there any specific influenza vaccination recommendations for these groups or others? 

Not for most people. In general, we have a number of different influenza vaccines each season; this year we have a total of nine brands. In general, there’s no preferential recommendation for one vaccine or type of vaccine for specific groups of people, with one exception: For people aged 65 years or older, there’s a preferential recommendation for three specific vaccines — the high-dose inactivated vaccine, Fluzone High-Dose; the recombinant vaccine, Flublok; and the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine, FLUAD. 

Among those three, there’s no preference for any one of them over the other two; they’re all preferred vaccines for this age group, if available. If none of those three vaccines are available at the time that somebody aged 65 or older is there to get vaccinated, people in this age group should get any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine that is available.

 

When should people get vaccinated if they haven’t already?

CDC and ACIP recommend vaccination for most people, ideally by the end of October. But for those who missed the end of October, it is absolutely not too late. Providers should continue to encourage vaccination and people should get their vaccines as long as flu viruses are circulating. 

The timing of the onset and the peak and the end of the flu season vary a bit from year to year. We often start to see generally activity begin to increase in the US in the fall, which is the reason for the end of October recommendation; however, flu activity doesn’t tend to peak in the US until after October. We’re talking December, January, or later, so getting vaccinated after October can still provide important protection during the peak of the season.

There does seem to be a tendency for people to think, OK, I haven’t gotten the vaccine yet, and there probably isn’t a lot of reason to do it now. But really, it’s definitely not too late, and that’s something we like to encourage people to think about, particularly as we move into December and January — it’s not too late if you missed October. 

Influenza vaccination is also available in so many places. You don’t necessarily have to go to a healthcare provider’s office; there are many retail chains which offer influenza vaccines.

 

Is influenza spreading right now? Are activity levels increasing?

Overall influenza activity currently is low nationally, although there’s starting to be some slight increases in the pediatric age groups and, of course, we do anticipate that it will increase in the coming weeks and months.

When we get vaccinated, the protection isn’t instantaneous. The immune system needs a bit of time to react to the vaccine and to develop antibodies. That can take about 2 weeks. Even with that, now is still absolutely not too late to get a vaccine. Neither is December, for that matter. As long as the flu viruses are circulating where you are, it is still worth getting vaccinated.

 

What was influenza vaccination coverage like last season?

It’s a little bit early to tell for the current season, but one of the things that we do know is that since the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage has dropped compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, influenza vaccination coverage had been slowly increasing in most groups, but it has decreased since then, and those downturns in coverage haven’t recovered to prepandemic levels. For example, during 2023-2024, about half of children and adults received a flu vaccine. 

What can providers do to encourage influenza vaccination in their patients?

We know that a healthcare provider’s strong recommendation for flu vaccination is a really major factor in whether or not patients get a flu vaccine, and is more effective in increasing acceptance of vaccination than just about any other factor. 

There’s a method from CDC called SHARE, which is a helpful way to help make a strong recommendation and provide information to help patients make an informed decision about whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

To implement SHARE, it’s an acronym with five parts. S is for Share the reasons why the flu vaccine is right for that patient. H is for Highlight positive experiences with flu vaccination, either personal or in practice. A is for Address patient concerns and questions about the flu vaccine, including things such as side effects, safety, and effectiveness. R is Remind patients that vaccination protects them and their loved ones from serious illness and related complications. E is Explain the potential complications and consequences of getting influenza, including serious health effects, time lost from family, work, and school, and potential financial costs.

Additional resources are accessible on CDC’s influenza resources page, including brochures, posters, and fact sheets that can help providers in encouraging and reminding people to get vaccinated.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This news organization recently spoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about what providers need to know regarding recommendations for influenza vaccination in the United States.

Text has been edited for length. 

 

Are there any updates to this season’s influenza vaccine or vaccine recommendations?

Yes, we have updates to both the vaccine and the vaccine recommendations this year. Typically we have some changes each year, and this year there are two main changes in the recommendations. One relates to the composition of the vaccine for this season, and the other is a new recommendation for adult solid organ transplant recipients. 

We typically have changes in the vaccine composition each season. For most seasons, one or more parts of the vaccine will change, but this year is a little different in that all of the vaccines available in the US for the 2024-2025 season are going to be three-virus, or trivalent, vaccines. They are going to be formulated to protect against three viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and an influenza B/Victoria lineage virus. 

The reason for this change is that since the 2013-2014 season through the 2023-2024 season, we had quadrivalent vaccines that were available in the US that contained four viruses. Those vaccines contained a second influenza B virus from the Yamagata lineage (B viruses come from two main lineages).

The reason for the change to trivalent vaccines this season is that influenza B/Yamagata viruses have not been detected in global surveillance since March 2020, and so their inclusion is no longer warranted. So this season, all of the vaccines available in the US are going to be trivalent.

In addition to that change, we have an update in the influenza A(H3N2) component of the vaccine compared with last season.

The second change concerning adult solid organ transplant recipients is that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18-64 years can receive as acceptable options either the high-dose inactivated vaccine or the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine without a preference over other age appropriate, inactivated, or recombinant vaccines.

Those vaccines are both formulated with features intended to make them more immunogenic — ie, promote a stronger immune response — and there are data for immunogenicity that suggest they could be more immunogenic in that population.

 

Who needs an influenza vaccine this season?

That recommendation is the same as it’s been for a number of years, which is that everybody aged 6 months or older is recommended to get a flu vaccine, with some rare exceptions, mainly concerning contraindications to vaccination. 

Contraindications are detailed in the ACIP flu statement each year, and they’re relatively uncommon conditions overall, so most people are recommended, if they’re in that age group 6 months and up, to get an annual flu vaccine.

Are there groups for whom influenza vaccination is especially important?

Yes. While influenza vaccination is recommended for everybody in that age group 6 months and up — and in truth, we can never really predict who’s going to get severely ill — some people are more likely to be at risk of having serious illness or hospitalization. Those people include adults aged 65 years or older; young children; people with certain chronic health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes; and people from some racial and ethnic groups.

 

Are there any specific influenza vaccination recommendations for these groups or others? 

Not for most people. In general, we have a number of different influenza vaccines each season; this year we have a total of nine brands. In general, there’s no preferential recommendation for one vaccine or type of vaccine for specific groups of people, with one exception: For people aged 65 years or older, there’s a preferential recommendation for three specific vaccines — the high-dose inactivated vaccine, Fluzone High-Dose; the recombinant vaccine, Flublok; and the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine, FLUAD. 

Among those three, there’s no preference for any one of them over the other two; they’re all preferred vaccines for this age group, if available. If none of those three vaccines are available at the time that somebody aged 65 or older is there to get vaccinated, people in this age group should get any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine that is available.

 

When should people get vaccinated if they haven’t already?

CDC and ACIP recommend vaccination for most people, ideally by the end of October. But for those who missed the end of October, it is absolutely not too late. Providers should continue to encourage vaccination and people should get their vaccines as long as flu viruses are circulating. 

The timing of the onset and the peak and the end of the flu season vary a bit from year to year. We often start to see generally activity begin to increase in the US in the fall, which is the reason for the end of October recommendation; however, flu activity doesn’t tend to peak in the US until after October. We’re talking December, January, or later, so getting vaccinated after October can still provide important protection during the peak of the season.

There does seem to be a tendency for people to think, OK, I haven’t gotten the vaccine yet, and there probably isn’t a lot of reason to do it now. But really, it’s definitely not too late, and that’s something we like to encourage people to think about, particularly as we move into December and January — it’s not too late if you missed October. 

Influenza vaccination is also available in so many places. You don’t necessarily have to go to a healthcare provider’s office; there are many retail chains which offer influenza vaccines.

 

Is influenza spreading right now? Are activity levels increasing?

Overall influenza activity currently is low nationally, although there’s starting to be some slight increases in the pediatric age groups and, of course, we do anticipate that it will increase in the coming weeks and months.

When we get vaccinated, the protection isn’t instantaneous. The immune system needs a bit of time to react to the vaccine and to develop antibodies. That can take about 2 weeks. Even with that, now is still absolutely not too late to get a vaccine. Neither is December, for that matter. As long as the flu viruses are circulating where you are, it is still worth getting vaccinated.

 

What was influenza vaccination coverage like last season?

It’s a little bit early to tell for the current season, but one of the things that we do know is that since the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage has dropped compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, influenza vaccination coverage had been slowly increasing in most groups, but it has decreased since then, and those downturns in coverage haven’t recovered to prepandemic levels. For example, during 2023-2024, about half of children and adults received a flu vaccine. 

What can providers do to encourage influenza vaccination in their patients?

We know that a healthcare provider’s strong recommendation for flu vaccination is a really major factor in whether or not patients get a flu vaccine, and is more effective in increasing acceptance of vaccination than just about any other factor. 

There’s a method from CDC called SHARE, which is a helpful way to help make a strong recommendation and provide information to help patients make an informed decision about whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

To implement SHARE, it’s an acronym with five parts. S is for Share the reasons why the flu vaccine is right for that patient. H is for Highlight positive experiences with flu vaccination, either personal or in practice. A is for Address patient concerns and questions about the flu vaccine, including things such as side effects, safety, and effectiveness. R is Remind patients that vaccination protects them and their loved ones from serious illness and related complications. E is Explain the potential complications and consequences of getting influenza, including serious health effects, time lost from family, work, and school, and potential financial costs.

Additional resources are accessible on CDC’s influenza resources page, including brochures, posters, and fact sheets that can help providers in encouraging and reminding people to get vaccinated.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This news organization recently spoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, Influenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about what providers need to know regarding recommendations for influenza vaccination in the United States.

Text has been edited for length. 

 

Are there any updates to this season’s influenza vaccine or vaccine recommendations?

Yes, we have updates to both the vaccine and the vaccine recommendations this year. Typically we have some changes each year, and this year there are two main changes in the recommendations. One relates to the composition of the vaccine for this season, and the other is a new recommendation for adult solid organ transplant recipients. 

We typically have changes in the vaccine composition each season. For most seasons, one or more parts of the vaccine will change, but this year is a little different in that all of the vaccines available in the US for the 2024-2025 season are going to be three-virus, or trivalent, vaccines. They are going to be formulated to protect against three viruses: an influenza A(H1N1) virus, an influenza A(H3N2) virus, and an influenza B/Victoria lineage virus. 

The reason for this change is that since the 2013-2014 season through the 2023-2024 season, we had quadrivalent vaccines that were available in the US that contained four viruses. Those vaccines contained a second influenza B virus from the Yamagata lineage (B viruses come from two main lineages).

The reason for the change to trivalent vaccines this season is that influenza B/Yamagata viruses have not been detected in global surveillance since March 2020, and so their inclusion is no longer warranted. So this season, all of the vaccines available in the US are going to be trivalent.

In addition to that change, we have an update in the influenza A(H3N2) component of the vaccine compared with last season.

The second change concerning adult solid organ transplant recipients is that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) now recommends that solid organ transplant recipients aged 18-64 years can receive as acceptable options either the high-dose inactivated vaccine or the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine without a preference over other age appropriate, inactivated, or recombinant vaccines.

Those vaccines are both formulated with features intended to make them more immunogenic — ie, promote a stronger immune response — and there are data for immunogenicity that suggest they could be more immunogenic in that population.

 

Who needs an influenza vaccine this season?

That recommendation is the same as it’s been for a number of years, which is that everybody aged 6 months or older is recommended to get a flu vaccine, with some rare exceptions, mainly concerning contraindications to vaccination. 

Contraindications are detailed in the ACIP flu statement each year, and they’re relatively uncommon conditions overall, so most people are recommended, if they’re in that age group 6 months and up, to get an annual flu vaccine.

Are there groups for whom influenza vaccination is especially important?

Yes. While influenza vaccination is recommended for everybody in that age group 6 months and up — and in truth, we can never really predict who’s going to get severely ill — some people are more likely to be at risk of having serious illness or hospitalization. Those people include adults aged 65 years or older; young children; people with certain chronic health conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes; and people from some racial and ethnic groups.

 

Are there any specific influenza vaccination recommendations for these groups or others? 

Not for most people. In general, we have a number of different influenza vaccines each season; this year we have a total of nine brands. In general, there’s no preferential recommendation for one vaccine or type of vaccine for specific groups of people, with one exception: For people aged 65 years or older, there’s a preferential recommendation for three specific vaccines — the high-dose inactivated vaccine, Fluzone High-Dose; the recombinant vaccine, Flublok; and the adjuvanted inactivated vaccine, FLUAD. 

Among those three, there’s no preference for any one of them over the other two; they’re all preferred vaccines for this age group, if available. If none of those three vaccines are available at the time that somebody aged 65 or older is there to get vaccinated, people in this age group should get any other age-appropriate influenza vaccine that is available.

 

When should people get vaccinated if they haven’t already?

CDC and ACIP recommend vaccination for most people, ideally by the end of October. But for those who missed the end of October, it is absolutely not too late. Providers should continue to encourage vaccination and people should get their vaccines as long as flu viruses are circulating. 

The timing of the onset and the peak and the end of the flu season vary a bit from year to year. We often start to see generally activity begin to increase in the US in the fall, which is the reason for the end of October recommendation; however, flu activity doesn’t tend to peak in the US until after October. We’re talking December, January, or later, so getting vaccinated after October can still provide important protection during the peak of the season.

There does seem to be a tendency for people to think, OK, I haven’t gotten the vaccine yet, and there probably isn’t a lot of reason to do it now. But really, it’s definitely not too late, and that’s something we like to encourage people to think about, particularly as we move into December and January — it’s not too late if you missed October. 

Influenza vaccination is also available in so many places. You don’t necessarily have to go to a healthcare provider’s office; there are many retail chains which offer influenza vaccines.

 

Is influenza spreading right now? Are activity levels increasing?

Overall influenza activity currently is low nationally, although there’s starting to be some slight increases in the pediatric age groups and, of course, we do anticipate that it will increase in the coming weeks and months.

When we get vaccinated, the protection isn’t instantaneous. The immune system needs a bit of time to react to the vaccine and to develop antibodies. That can take about 2 weeks. Even with that, now is still absolutely not too late to get a vaccine. Neither is December, for that matter. As long as the flu viruses are circulating where you are, it is still worth getting vaccinated.

 

What was influenza vaccination coverage like last season?

It’s a little bit early to tell for the current season, but one of the things that we do know is that since the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage has dropped compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Before COVID-19, influenza vaccination coverage had been slowly increasing in most groups, but it has decreased since then, and those downturns in coverage haven’t recovered to prepandemic levels. For example, during 2023-2024, about half of children and adults received a flu vaccine. 

What can providers do to encourage influenza vaccination in their patients?

We know that a healthcare provider’s strong recommendation for flu vaccination is a really major factor in whether or not patients get a flu vaccine, and is more effective in increasing acceptance of vaccination than just about any other factor. 

There’s a method from CDC called SHARE, which is a helpful way to help make a strong recommendation and provide information to help patients make an informed decision about whether or not they want to be vaccinated.

To implement SHARE, it’s an acronym with five parts. S is for Share the reasons why the flu vaccine is right for that patient. H is for Highlight positive experiences with flu vaccination, either personal or in practice. A is for Address patient concerns and questions about the flu vaccine, including things such as side effects, safety, and effectiveness. R is Remind patients that vaccination protects them and their loved ones from serious illness and related complications. E is Explain the potential complications and consequences of getting influenza, including serious health effects, time lost from family, work, and school, and potential financial costs.

Additional resources are accessible on CDC’s influenza resources page, including brochures, posters, and fact sheets that can help providers in encouraging and reminding people to get vaccinated.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Family physicians should familiarize themselves with doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) as a prescription for patients who frequently have unprotected sex (including oral, anal, and vaginal) with multiple partners, according to a presentation at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024. Doxy PEP decreases the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Many family physicians may be unaware of doxy PEP as a means of avoiding STIs. “Doxy PEP is an incredible tool that can be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to reduce bacterial STI risk,” said James Owen, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point to data from three randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of doxy PEP to decrease syphilis and chlamydia infections by more than 70% and decrease gonococcal infections by about 50%, said Jordan Goodridge, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto.

 

Optimizing Doxy PEP

Doxy PEP (200 mg) is most effective when administered in the first 24 hours after unprotected sex, explained Goodridge. It is recommended that patients repeat the 200-mg dose if they are sexually active again within 24 hours.

To ensure optimal absorption of doxy PEP, the drug should not be taken with antacids or multivitamins, said Goodridge. Antacids “can bind to doxycycline and prevent it from being absorbed,” he said.

A key concern about doxy PEP is the development of antimicrobial resistance, noted Goodridge. “We don’t have long-term studies to give us an idea about what this risk is, to quantify it. The studies we have are relatively short, generally less than a year, and didn’t suggest that there was a huge risk [for antimicrobial resistance].”

Moreover, doxycycline is teratogenic, and its use is contraindicated in pregnancy, said Goodridge. If a pregnant patient is being treated for syphilis, then penicillin is the treatment of choice. For pregnant patients with penicillin allergy, Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines call for penicillin desensitization followed by penicillin.

The rate of syphilis has been rising in Canadian women of reproductive age, thus increasing the potential for congenital syphilis, noted Goodridge.

 

Benefits of HPV Vaccine

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is recommended in Canada for patients aged 9-26 years, but those aged 27 years or older at ongoing risk for HPV exposure may receive the 9-valent HPV vaccine after discussion with their healthcare providers, noted Owen.

High-risk patients can benefit from the vaccine even though they have likely had exposure to HPV, he added. “If someone has multiple sexual partners, they have probably been exposed to HPV at some point,” said Owen. “You still could reduce a patient’s risk for being exposed to certain oncogenic strains [of HPV]. Certainly, within our practices, we’re often giving it [that is, the HPV vaccine] to higher-risk individuals, including men having sex with men.”

 

HIV Prevention

“Condoms are still a mainstay of HIV and STI prevention, but condom use is going down,” said Owen.

In a national survey commissioned by the Toronto-based organization LetsStopAIDS and including more than 1100 Canadians aged 18-24 years, 24% of respondents said they use condoms “all the time.” In 2020, by contrast, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that they use condoms all the time.

Updated Canadian guidelines on the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are expected to be released in 2025 and will address questions about how frequently individuals taking HIV PrEP should be tested to ensure a negative HIV result. The guidelines will also provide guidance as to whether HIV serology or HIV viral load should be captured, said Owen. Patients in Canada who take HIV PrEP are now generally screened for HIV every 3 months.

A new HIV PrEP tool that has become available to Canadian clinicians is the injectable drug cabotegravir, which is dosed every 2 months.

Owen and Goodridge reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Family physicians should familiarize themselves with doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) as a prescription for patients who frequently have unprotected sex (including oral, anal, and vaginal) with multiple partners, according to a presentation at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024. Doxy PEP decreases the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Many family physicians may be unaware of doxy PEP as a means of avoiding STIs. “Doxy PEP is an incredible tool that can be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to reduce bacterial STI risk,” said James Owen, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point to data from three randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of doxy PEP to decrease syphilis and chlamydia infections by more than 70% and decrease gonococcal infections by about 50%, said Jordan Goodridge, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto.

 

Optimizing Doxy PEP

Doxy PEP (200 mg) is most effective when administered in the first 24 hours after unprotected sex, explained Goodridge. It is recommended that patients repeat the 200-mg dose if they are sexually active again within 24 hours.

To ensure optimal absorption of doxy PEP, the drug should not be taken with antacids or multivitamins, said Goodridge. Antacids “can bind to doxycycline and prevent it from being absorbed,” he said.

A key concern about doxy PEP is the development of antimicrobial resistance, noted Goodridge. “We don’t have long-term studies to give us an idea about what this risk is, to quantify it. The studies we have are relatively short, generally less than a year, and didn’t suggest that there was a huge risk [for antimicrobial resistance].”

Moreover, doxycycline is teratogenic, and its use is contraindicated in pregnancy, said Goodridge. If a pregnant patient is being treated for syphilis, then penicillin is the treatment of choice. For pregnant patients with penicillin allergy, Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines call for penicillin desensitization followed by penicillin.

The rate of syphilis has been rising in Canadian women of reproductive age, thus increasing the potential for congenital syphilis, noted Goodridge.

 

Benefits of HPV Vaccine

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is recommended in Canada for patients aged 9-26 years, but those aged 27 years or older at ongoing risk for HPV exposure may receive the 9-valent HPV vaccine after discussion with their healthcare providers, noted Owen.

High-risk patients can benefit from the vaccine even though they have likely had exposure to HPV, he added. “If someone has multiple sexual partners, they have probably been exposed to HPV at some point,” said Owen. “You still could reduce a patient’s risk for being exposed to certain oncogenic strains [of HPV]. Certainly, within our practices, we’re often giving it [that is, the HPV vaccine] to higher-risk individuals, including men having sex with men.”

 

HIV Prevention

“Condoms are still a mainstay of HIV and STI prevention, but condom use is going down,” said Owen.

In a national survey commissioned by the Toronto-based organization LetsStopAIDS and including more than 1100 Canadians aged 18-24 years, 24% of respondents said they use condoms “all the time.” In 2020, by contrast, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that they use condoms all the time.

Updated Canadian guidelines on the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are expected to be released in 2025 and will address questions about how frequently individuals taking HIV PrEP should be tested to ensure a negative HIV result. The guidelines will also provide guidance as to whether HIV serology or HIV viral load should be captured, said Owen. Patients in Canada who take HIV PrEP are now generally screened for HIV every 3 months.

A new HIV PrEP tool that has become available to Canadian clinicians is the injectable drug cabotegravir, which is dosed every 2 months.

Owen and Goodridge reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Family physicians should familiarize themselves with doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) as a prescription for patients who frequently have unprotected sex (including oral, anal, and vaginal) with multiple partners, according to a presentation at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024. Doxy PEP decreases the risk for bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Many family physicians may be unaware of doxy PEP as a means of avoiding STIs. “Doxy PEP is an incredible tool that can be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to reduce bacterial STI risk,” said James Owen, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention point to data from three randomized, controlled trials that demonstrate the ability of doxy PEP to decrease syphilis and chlamydia infections by more than 70% and decrease gonococcal infections by about 50%, said Jordan Goodridge, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto.

 

Optimizing Doxy PEP

Doxy PEP (200 mg) is most effective when administered in the first 24 hours after unprotected sex, explained Goodridge. It is recommended that patients repeat the 200-mg dose if they are sexually active again within 24 hours.

To ensure optimal absorption of doxy PEP, the drug should not be taken with antacids or multivitamins, said Goodridge. Antacids “can bind to doxycycline and prevent it from being absorbed,” he said.

A key concern about doxy PEP is the development of antimicrobial resistance, noted Goodridge. “We don’t have long-term studies to give us an idea about what this risk is, to quantify it. The studies we have are relatively short, generally less than a year, and didn’t suggest that there was a huge risk [for antimicrobial resistance].”

Moreover, doxycycline is teratogenic, and its use is contraindicated in pregnancy, said Goodridge. If a pregnant patient is being treated for syphilis, then penicillin is the treatment of choice. For pregnant patients with penicillin allergy, Public Health Agency of Canada guidelines call for penicillin desensitization followed by penicillin.

The rate of syphilis has been rising in Canadian women of reproductive age, thus increasing the potential for congenital syphilis, noted Goodridge.

 

Benefits of HPV Vaccine

The 9-valent HPV vaccine is recommended in Canada for patients aged 9-26 years, but those aged 27 years or older at ongoing risk for HPV exposure may receive the 9-valent HPV vaccine after discussion with their healthcare providers, noted Owen.

High-risk patients can benefit from the vaccine even though they have likely had exposure to HPV, he added. “If someone has multiple sexual partners, they have probably been exposed to HPV at some point,” said Owen. “You still could reduce a patient’s risk for being exposed to certain oncogenic strains [of HPV]. Certainly, within our practices, we’re often giving it [that is, the HPV vaccine] to higher-risk individuals, including men having sex with men.”

 

HIV Prevention

“Condoms are still a mainstay of HIV and STI prevention, but condom use is going down,” said Owen.

In a national survey commissioned by the Toronto-based organization LetsStopAIDS and including more than 1100 Canadians aged 18-24 years, 24% of respondents said they use condoms “all the time.” In 2020, by contrast, more than half (53%) of respondents reported that they use condoms all the time.

Updated Canadian guidelines on the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are expected to be released in 2025 and will address questions about how frequently individuals taking HIV PrEP should be tested to ensure a negative HIV result. The guidelines will also provide guidance as to whether HIV serology or HIV viral load should be captured, said Owen. Patients in Canada who take HIV PrEP are now generally screened for HIV every 3 months.

A new HIV PrEP tool that has become available to Canadian clinicians is the injectable drug cabotegravir, which is dosed every 2 months.

Owen and Goodridge reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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