Vaccines

With COVID-19 hospitalizations up by 22% and deaths up by 8% as of Aug. 12, primary care clinicians are readying to distribute the new COVID-19 booster that is expected to arrive in September.

David Cutler, MD, is hoping to vaccinate as many of his patients who want the shots. He and other primary care clinicians are finally back in the business of prevention after being sidelined during the pandemic.

Most primary care clinicians weren’t provided with the vaccine through the height of the pandemic, when federal officials instead focused their efforts on vaccine distribution through hospital systems and retail pharmacies. The consequence, primary care clinicians say, is that they have no records for patients who need the vaccine; they cannot send patients reminders; and they have no idea if an at-risk patient is ready for a booster.

“The role of primary care is educating people about COVID-19, testing for COVID-19 and other infections, providing access to vaccines and treatment, and sustaining our health care system to provide care, fight disease, and save lives,” said Dr. Cutler, a family physician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

A study published in Health Affairs confirmed that primary care practices were not included in the federal vaccine strategy. The researchers found that by the end of 2021, 43.1% of 2,000 primary care practices had no records of COVID-19 vaccinations for patients. More than 90% had records for historically routine immunizations, such as influenza and shingles.

“I do believe if PCPs had earlier access to the vaccine, we could have done a better job vaccinating more people,” said Ann Greiner, MCP, president and chief executive officer of the Primary Care Collaborative, a nonprofit organization. “We need to make sure they’re back in that seat, providing the lion’s share of those vaccines.”
 

The roadblocks to vaccines

More than 20,000 primary care clinicians applied to distribute vaccines to patients as of April 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A quarter of those received the shots. Fewer than 5% of all vaccine doses were provided to primary care offices during that early stage of rollout.

Natasha Beauvais, MD, MPH, a family physician at Northern Virginia Family Practice in Alexandria, Va., said trying to vaccinate patients back then was a herculean task.

“We were desperate to get the vaccine, like many practices,” Dr. Beauvais said.

It was only by chance – through one of the physician’s work connections – that they got in touch with the city’s health department to request a supply of immunizations.

The requirements for becoming a vaccine provider were stringent: Dr. Beauvais had to show that her practice could appropriately refrigerate or freeze doses at much colder temperatures than most immunizations, monitor the storage unit at all times, and accurately record and schedule every dose. What’s more, most primary care practices lacked the bandwidth to conduct mass vaccinations like larger medical systems.

Robert L. Phillips Jr., MD, MSPH, founding executive director at the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation, said that the decision to sideline primary care practices, along with a poor records system, left clinicians struggling to leverage relationships with patients to boost rates of vaccination.

“Primary care is where most people have trusted health relationships, and it should be more than a footnote in the nation’s epidemic response plans,” said Dr. Phillips, a corresponding author of the Health Affairs study.

The exclusion of primary care has deep roots: These clinicians were mentioned as a footnote in the CDC’s 2017 Pandemic Influenza Plan, according to Dr. Phillips.

“There’s no one in the federal government who wakes up in the morning thinking of primary care,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s not the only reason the numbers were down, but a big reason.”

Other countries, including Australia, utilized the specialty for vaccine distribution. A 2022 article in Australian Health Review noted that the success of Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout came down to the involvement of primary care.

Dr. Cutler said his clinic also did as much as they could during the early pandemic – from keeping their urgent care clinic open to providing COVID-19 antibody testing and infusions. His practice was able to start vaccinating patients in March 2021, and by that summer, the office had provided the immunization to 4,000 patients. Dr. Cutler was also able to address any health problems these patients reported during their vaccination visit.

“A vaccine is not just a vaccine: It’s an opportunity to have a conversation between a primary care physician and a patient about other health issues, and it encultures people to get important preventive care,” Ms. Greiner said.

The Health Affairs study was supported by the CDC.

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

With COVID-19 hospitalizations up by 22% and deaths up by 8% as of Aug. 12, primary care clinicians are readying to distribute the new COVID-19 booster that is expected to arrive in September.

David Cutler, MD, is hoping to vaccinate as many of his patients who want the shots. He and other primary care clinicians are finally back in the business of prevention after being sidelined during the pandemic.

Most primary care clinicians weren’t provided with the vaccine through the height of the pandemic, when federal officials instead focused their efforts on vaccine distribution through hospital systems and retail pharmacies. The consequence, primary care clinicians say, is that they have no records for patients who need the vaccine; they cannot send patients reminders; and they have no idea if an at-risk patient is ready for a booster.

“The role of primary care is educating people about COVID-19, testing for COVID-19 and other infections, providing access to vaccines and treatment, and sustaining our health care system to provide care, fight disease, and save lives,” said Dr. Cutler, a family physician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

A study published in Health Affairs confirmed that primary care practices were not included in the federal vaccine strategy. The researchers found that by the end of 2021, 43.1% of 2,000 primary care practices had no records of COVID-19 vaccinations for patients. More than 90% had records for historically routine immunizations, such as influenza and shingles.

“I do believe if PCPs had earlier access to the vaccine, we could have done a better job vaccinating more people,” said Ann Greiner, MCP, president and chief executive officer of the Primary Care Collaborative, a nonprofit organization. “We need to make sure they’re back in that seat, providing the lion’s share of those vaccines.”
 

The roadblocks to vaccines

More than 20,000 primary care clinicians applied to distribute vaccines to patients as of April 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A quarter of those received the shots. Fewer than 5% of all vaccine doses were provided to primary care offices during that early stage of rollout.

Natasha Beauvais, MD, MPH, a family physician at Northern Virginia Family Practice in Alexandria, Va., said trying to vaccinate patients back then was a herculean task.

“We were desperate to get the vaccine, like many practices,” Dr. Beauvais said.

It was only by chance – through one of the physician’s work connections – that they got in touch with the city’s health department to request a supply of immunizations.

The requirements for becoming a vaccine provider were stringent: Dr. Beauvais had to show that her practice could appropriately refrigerate or freeze doses at much colder temperatures than most immunizations, monitor the storage unit at all times, and accurately record and schedule every dose. What’s more, most primary care practices lacked the bandwidth to conduct mass vaccinations like larger medical systems.

Robert L. Phillips Jr., MD, MSPH, founding executive director at the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation, said that the decision to sideline primary care practices, along with a poor records system, left clinicians struggling to leverage relationships with patients to boost rates of vaccination.

“Primary care is where most people have trusted health relationships, and it should be more than a footnote in the nation’s epidemic response plans,” said Dr. Phillips, a corresponding author of the Health Affairs study.

The exclusion of primary care has deep roots: These clinicians were mentioned as a footnote in the CDC’s 2017 Pandemic Influenza Plan, according to Dr. Phillips.

“There’s no one in the federal government who wakes up in the morning thinking of primary care,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s not the only reason the numbers were down, but a big reason.”

Other countries, including Australia, utilized the specialty for vaccine distribution. A 2022 article in Australian Health Review noted that the success of Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout came down to the involvement of primary care.

Dr. Cutler said his clinic also did as much as they could during the early pandemic – from keeping their urgent care clinic open to providing COVID-19 antibody testing and infusions. His practice was able to start vaccinating patients in March 2021, and by that summer, the office had provided the immunization to 4,000 patients. Dr. Cutler was also able to address any health problems these patients reported during their vaccination visit.

“A vaccine is not just a vaccine: It’s an opportunity to have a conversation between a primary care physician and a patient about other health issues, and it encultures people to get important preventive care,” Ms. Greiner said.

The Health Affairs study was supported by the CDC.

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

With COVID-19 hospitalizations up by 22% and deaths up by 8% as of Aug. 12, primary care clinicians are readying to distribute the new COVID-19 booster that is expected to arrive in September.

David Cutler, MD, is hoping to vaccinate as many of his patients who want the shots. He and other primary care clinicians are finally back in the business of prevention after being sidelined during the pandemic.

Most primary care clinicians weren’t provided with the vaccine through the height of the pandemic, when federal officials instead focused their efforts on vaccine distribution through hospital systems and retail pharmacies. The consequence, primary care clinicians say, is that they have no records for patients who need the vaccine; they cannot send patients reminders; and they have no idea if an at-risk patient is ready for a booster.

“The role of primary care is educating people about COVID-19, testing for COVID-19 and other infections, providing access to vaccines and treatment, and sustaining our health care system to provide care, fight disease, and save lives,” said Dr. Cutler, a family physician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

A study published in Health Affairs confirmed that primary care practices were not included in the federal vaccine strategy. The researchers found that by the end of 2021, 43.1% of 2,000 primary care practices had no records of COVID-19 vaccinations for patients. More than 90% had records for historically routine immunizations, such as influenza and shingles.

“I do believe if PCPs had earlier access to the vaccine, we could have done a better job vaccinating more people,” said Ann Greiner, MCP, president and chief executive officer of the Primary Care Collaborative, a nonprofit organization. “We need to make sure they’re back in that seat, providing the lion’s share of those vaccines.”
 

The roadblocks to vaccines

More than 20,000 primary care clinicians applied to distribute vaccines to patients as of April 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A quarter of those received the shots. Fewer than 5% of all vaccine doses were provided to primary care offices during that early stage of rollout.

Natasha Beauvais, MD, MPH, a family physician at Northern Virginia Family Practice in Alexandria, Va., said trying to vaccinate patients back then was a herculean task.

“We were desperate to get the vaccine, like many practices,” Dr. Beauvais said.

It was only by chance – through one of the physician’s work connections – that they got in touch with the city’s health department to request a supply of immunizations.

The requirements for becoming a vaccine provider were stringent: Dr. Beauvais had to show that her practice could appropriately refrigerate or freeze doses at much colder temperatures than most immunizations, monitor the storage unit at all times, and accurately record and schedule every dose. What’s more, most primary care practices lacked the bandwidth to conduct mass vaccinations like larger medical systems.

Robert L. Phillips Jr., MD, MSPH, founding executive director at the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation, said that the decision to sideline primary care practices, along with a poor records system, left clinicians struggling to leverage relationships with patients to boost rates of vaccination.

“Primary care is where most people have trusted health relationships, and it should be more than a footnote in the nation’s epidemic response plans,” said Dr. Phillips, a corresponding author of the Health Affairs study.

The exclusion of primary care has deep roots: These clinicians were mentioned as a footnote in the CDC’s 2017 Pandemic Influenza Plan, according to Dr. Phillips.

“There’s no one in the federal government who wakes up in the morning thinking of primary care,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s not the only reason the numbers were down, but a big reason.”

Other countries, including Australia, utilized the specialty for vaccine distribution. A 2022 article in Australian Health Review noted that the success of Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout came down to the involvement of primary care.

Dr. Cutler said his clinic also did as much as they could during the early pandemic – from keeping their urgent care clinic open to providing COVID-19 antibody testing and infusions. His practice was able to start vaccinating patients in March 2021, and by that summer, the office had provided the immunization to 4,000 patients. Dr. Cutler was also able to address any health problems these patients reported during their vaccination visit.

“A vaccine is not just a vaccine: It’s an opportunity to have a conversation between a primary care physician and a patient about other health issues, and it encultures people to get important preventive care,” Ms. Greiner said.

The Health Affairs study was supported by the CDC.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking a newly discovered strain of COVID-19 called BA.2.86.

On Aug. 17, the agency posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the lineage has been detected in the United States, Denmark, and Israel. 

“As we learn more about BA.2.86, CDC’s advice on protecting yourself from COVID-19 remains the same,” the CDC said on X. 

A case of BA.2.86 was detected at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, CBS News reported. It’s not clear how the university obtained the sample that was sequenced. A case was also detected in the United Kingdom, the news outlet said. 

The World Health Organization is also tracking BA.2.86 and has classified it as a “variant under monitoring.” 

“More data are needed to understand this COVID-19 variant and the extent of its spread, but the number of mutations warrants attention. WHO will update countries and the public as we learn more,” the WHO said on X.

The strain is so new that scientists don’t know if BA.2.86 is more easily spread, causes more severe symptoms than existing strains, or will be more resistant to vaccines and natural immunity developed over the last few years. 

Early research indicates BA.2.86 “will have equal or greater escape than XBB.1.5 from antibodies elicited by pre-Omicron and first-generation Omicron variants,” Jesse Bloom, PhD, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in a slide deck published Aug. 17. (XBB.1.5 is the Omicron subvariant that is targeted in the updated COVID booster shot to be released soon.)

Still, Dr. Bloom noted that “even if a highly mutated new variant like BA.2.86 starts to spread, we will be in a far better place than we were in 2020 and 2021, since most people have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 now.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking a newly discovered strain of COVID-19 called BA.2.86.

On Aug. 17, the agency posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the lineage has been detected in the United States, Denmark, and Israel. 

“As we learn more about BA.2.86, CDC’s advice on protecting yourself from COVID-19 remains the same,” the CDC said on X. 

A case of BA.2.86 was detected at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, CBS News reported. It’s not clear how the university obtained the sample that was sequenced. A case was also detected in the United Kingdom, the news outlet said. 

The World Health Organization is also tracking BA.2.86 and has classified it as a “variant under monitoring.” 

“More data are needed to understand this COVID-19 variant and the extent of its spread, but the number of mutations warrants attention. WHO will update countries and the public as we learn more,” the WHO said on X.

The strain is so new that scientists don’t know if BA.2.86 is more easily spread, causes more severe symptoms than existing strains, or will be more resistant to vaccines and natural immunity developed over the last few years. 

Early research indicates BA.2.86 “will have equal or greater escape than XBB.1.5 from antibodies elicited by pre-Omicron and first-generation Omicron variants,” Jesse Bloom, PhD, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in a slide deck published Aug. 17. (XBB.1.5 is the Omicron subvariant that is targeted in the updated COVID booster shot to be released soon.)

Still, Dr. Bloom noted that “even if a highly mutated new variant like BA.2.86 starts to spread, we will be in a far better place than we were in 2020 and 2021, since most people have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 now.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking a newly discovered strain of COVID-19 called BA.2.86.

On Aug. 17, the agency posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the lineage has been detected in the United States, Denmark, and Israel. 

“As we learn more about BA.2.86, CDC’s advice on protecting yourself from COVID-19 remains the same,” the CDC said on X. 

A case of BA.2.86 was detected at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, CBS News reported. It’s not clear how the university obtained the sample that was sequenced. A case was also detected in the United Kingdom, the news outlet said. 

The World Health Organization is also tracking BA.2.86 and has classified it as a “variant under monitoring.” 

“More data are needed to understand this COVID-19 variant and the extent of its spread, but the number of mutations warrants attention. WHO will update countries and the public as we learn more,” the WHO said on X.

The strain is so new that scientists don’t know if BA.2.86 is more easily spread, causes more severe symptoms than existing strains, or will be more resistant to vaccines and natural immunity developed over the last few years. 

Early research indicates BA.2.86 “will have equal or greater escape than XBB.1.5 from antibodies elicited by pre-Omicron and first-generation Omicron variants,” Jesse Bloom, PhD, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in a slide deck published Aug. 17. (XBB.1.5 is the Omicron subvariant that is targeted in the updated COVID booster shot to be released soon.)

Still, Dr. Bloom noted that “even if a highly mutated new variant like BA.2.86 starts to spread, we will be in a far better place than we were in 2020 and 2021, since most people have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 now.”

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

French researchers have been working on an innovative vaccine that targets tick microbiota to indirectly reduce the bacterial load within the vector. The results of their study were published in the journal Microbiome.

Ticks are vectors of many harmful pathogens that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Ixodes ricinus (in Europe) and Ixodes scapularis (in Canada and the United States) carry Borrelia, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. At the moment, there is no vaccine for this disease. But that could all change, thanks to the findings of scientists at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), in collaboration with the Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety and the National Veterinary School of Alfort, France.

“Ticks can transmit a broad variety of pathogens of medical importance, including Borrelia afzelii, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Tick microbiota is an important factor modulating not only vector physiology, but also the vector competence,” the team reported. They focused their efforts on developing a vaccine that would disturb the tick microbiota and thus reduce Borrelia colonization.

To explore this indirect approach, they injected a harmless strain of Escherichia coli bacteria into mice, which then produced antibodies. Their reasoning was that when a tick bites one of these mice, the antibodies would pass into the arachnid’s microbiota and disturb it, thereby making the tick less harmful. And indeed, the researchers’ work showed that in the ticks that fed on vaccinated mice, levels of Borrelia levels were much lower than in than ticks that fed on unvaccinated mice (see video for an explanation). So, when given to a mouse, this vaccine “protects” the tick against colonization by Borrelia but does not protect the mouse against the disease.

The study has advanced this area of research in two significant ways: It provides new information on the importance of the microbiota when it comes to ticks that are infected with Borrelia, and it suggests an innovative vaccination strategy. Indeed, the results confirm that tick microbiota is essential for the development of Borrelia in the arachnid. As noted in an INRAE press release, “This is a key piece of data that opens the door to one day having an innovative vaccination strategy aimed at perturbing the microbiota of the vector of the Lyme disease agent.”

Dengue, Zika virus, and malaria are also transmitted by a vector – the mosquito. Innovative antimicrobiota vaccines may be able to control these diseases as well.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

French researchers have been working on an innovative vaccine that targets tick microbiota to indirectly reduce the bacterial load within the vector. The results of their study were published in the journal Microbiome.

Ticks are vectors of many harmful pathogens that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Ixodes ricinus (in Europe) and Ixodes scapularis (in Canada and the United States) carry Borrelia, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. At the moment, there is no vaccine for this disease. But that could all change, thanks to the findings of scientists at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), in collaboration with the Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety and the National Veterinary School of Alfort, France.

“Ticks can transmit a broad variety of pathogens of medical importance, including Borrelia afzelii, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Tick microbiota is an important factor modulating not only vector physiology, but also the vector competence,” the team reported. They focused their efforts on developing a vaccine that would disturb the tick microbiota and thus reduce Borrelia colonization.

To explore this indirect approach, they injected a harmless strain of Escherichia coli bacteria into mice, which then produced antibodies. Their reasoning was that when a tick bites one of these mice, the antibodies would pass into the arachnid’s microbiota and disturb it, thereby making the tick less harmful. And indeed, the researchers’ work showed that in the ticks that fed on vaccinated mice, levels of Borrelia levels were much lower than in than ticks that fed on unvaccinated mice (see video for an explanation). So, when given to a mouse, this vaccine “protects” the tick against colonization by Borrelia but does not protect the mouse against the disease.

The study has advanced this area of research in two significant ways: It provides new information on the importance of the microbiota when it comes to ticks that are infected with Borrelia, and it suggests an innovative vaccination strategy. Indeed, the results confirm that tick microbiota is essential for the development of Borrelia in the arachnid. As noted in an INRAE press release, “This is a key piece of data that opens the door to one day having an innovative vaccination strategy aimed at perturbing the microbiota of the vector of the Lyme disease agent.”

Dengue, Zika virus, and malaria are also transmitted by a vector – the mosquito. Innovative antimicrobiota vaccines may be able to control these diseases as well.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

French researchers have been working on an innovative vaccine that targets tick microbiota to indirectly reduce the bacterial load within the vector. The results of their study were published in the journal Microbiome.

Ticks are vectors of many harmful pathogens that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Ixodes ricinus (in Europe) and Ixodes scapularis (in Canada and the United States) carry Borrelia, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. At the moment, there is no vaccine for this disease. But that could all change, thanks to the findings of scientists at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), in collaboration with the Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety and the National Veterinary School of Alfort, France.

“Ticks can transmit a broad variety of pathogens of medical importance, including Borrelia afzelii, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Tick microbiota is an important factor modulating not only vector physiology, but also the vector competence,” the team reported. They focused their efforts on developing a vaccine that would disturb the tick microbiota and thus reduce Borrelia colonization.

To explore this indirect approach, they injected a harmless strain of Escherichia coli bacteria into mice, which then produced antibodies. Their reasoning was that when a tick bites one of these mice, the antibodies would pass into the arachnid’s microbiota and disturb it, thereby making the tick less harmful. And indeed, the researchers’ work showed that in the ticks that fed on vaccinated mice, levels of Borrelia levels were much lower than in than ticks that fed on unvaccinated mice (see video for an explanation). So, when given to a mouse, this vaccine “protects” the tick against colonization by Borrelia but does not protect the mouse against the disease.

The study has advanced this area of research in two significant ways: It provides new information on the importance of the microbiota when it comes to ticks that are infected with Borrelia, and it suggests an innovative vaccination strategy. Indeed, the results confirm that tick microbiota is essential for the development of Borrelia in the arachnid. As noted in an INRAE press release, “This is a key piece of data that opens the door to one day having an innovative vaccination strategy aimed at perturbing the microbiota of the vector of the Lyme disease agent.”

Dengue, Zika virus, and malaria are also transmitted by a vector – the mosquito. Innovative antimicrobiota vaccines may be able to control these diseases as well.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A telehealth primary care visit more than doubled the well-visit show rate for a cohort of hard-to-reach adolescents, results of a small pilot study show.

Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, led the pilot study and the project team, which included physicians, researchers, and experts in innovation, quality improvement, and data analytics.

Findings were published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

Keeping adolescents in consistent primary care can be challenging for many reasons. The study authors note, “Only 50% of adolescents have had a health supervision visit in the past year, missing a critical opportunity for clinicians to influence health, development, screening, and counseling.”

Interest high in hard-to-reach group

This study included a particularly hard-to-reach group of 18-year-old patients at an urban primary care clinic who were lost to follow-up and had Medicaid insurance. They had not completed a well visit in more than 2 years and had a history of no-show visits.

Interest in the pilot program was high. The authors write: “We contacted patients (or their caregivers) to gauge interest in a virtual well visit with a goal to fill five telehealth slots in one evening block with one clinician. Due to high patient interest and demand, we expanded to 15 slots over three evenings, filling the slots after contacting just 24 patients.”

Professional organizations have recommended a telehealth/in-person hybrid care model to meet hard-to-reach adolescents “wherever they are,” the authors note, but the concept has not been well studied.

Under the hybrid model, the first visit is through telehealth and in-person follow-up is scheduled as needed.

Navigators contacted patients to remind them of the appointment, and helped activate the patient portal and complete previsit screening questions for depression and other health risks.

Telehealth visits were billed as preventive visits and in-person follow-up visits as no-charge nurse visits, and these payments were supported by Medicaid.
 

Sharp increase in show rate

In the pilot study, of the 15 patients scheduled for the telehealth visit, 11 connected virtually (73% show rate). Of those, nine needed in-person follow-up, and five completed the follow-up.

Before the intervention, the average well-visit show rate for this patient group was 33%.

Clinicians counseled all the patients about substance use and safe sex. One patient screened positive for depression and was then connected to services. Two patients were started on birth control.

During the in-person follow-up, all patients received vaccinations (influenza, meningococcal, and/or COVID-19) and were screened for sexually transmitted infection. Eight patients completed the satisfaction survey and all said they liked the convenience of the telehealth visit.
 

Telehealth may reduce barriers for teens

Anthony Cheng, MD, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of the study, said he found the hybrid model promising.

One reason is that telehealth eliminates the need for transportation to medical appointments, which can be a barrier for adolescents.

Among the top causes of death for young people are mental health issues and addressing those, Dr. Cheng noted, is well-suited to a telehealth visit.

“There’s so much we can do if we can establish a relationship and maintain a relationship with our patients as young adults,” he said. “People do better when they have a regular source of care.”

He added that adolescents also have grown up communicating via screens so it’s often more comfortable for them to communicate with health care providers this way.

Dr. Cheng said adopting such a model may be difficult for providers reluctant to switch from the practice model with which they are most comfortable.

“We prefer to do things we have the most confidence in,” he said. “It does take an investment to train staff and build your own clinical comfort. If that experience wasn’t good over the past 3 years, you may be anxious to get back to your normal way of doing business.”

The authors and Dr. Cheng have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A telehealth primary care visit more than doubled the well-visit show rate for a cohort of hard-to-reach adolescents, results of a small pilot study show.

Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, led the pilot study and the project team, which included physicians, researchers, and experts in innovation, quality improvement, and data analytics.

Findings were published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

Keeping adolescents in consistent primary care can be challenging for many reasons. The study authors note, “Only 50% of adolescents have had a health supervision visit in the past year, missing a critical opportunity for clinicians to influence health, development, screening, and counseling.”

Interest high in hard-to-reach group

This study included a particularly hard-to-reach group of 18-year-old patients at an urban primary care clinic who were lost to follow-up and had Medicaid insurance. They had not completed a well visit in more than 2 years and had a history of no-show visits.

Interest in the pilot program was high. The authors write: “We contacted patients (or their caregivers) to gauge interest in a virtual well visit with a goal to fill five telehealth slots in one evening block with one clinician. Due to high patient interest and demand, we expanded to 15 slots over three evenings, filling the slots after contacting just 24 patients.”

Professional organizations have recommended a telehealth/in-person hybrid care model to meet hard-to-reach adolescents “wherever they are,” the authors note, but the concept has not been well studied.

Under the hybrid model, the first visit is through telehealth and in-person follow-up is scheduled as needed.

Navigators contacted patients to remind them of the appointment, and helped activate the patient portal and complete previsit screening questions for depression and other health risks.

Telehealth visits were billed as preventive visits and in-person follow-up visits as no-charge nurse visits, and these payments were supported by Medicaid.
 

Sharp increase in show rate

In the pilot study, of the 15 patients scheduled for the telehealth visit, 11 connected virtually (73% show rate). Of those, nine needed in-person follow-up, and five completed the follow-up.

Before the intervention, the average well-visit show rate for this patient group was 33%.

Clinicians counseled all the patients about substance use and safe sex. One patient screened positive for depression and was then connected to services. Two patients were started on birth control.

During the in-person follow-up, all patients received vaccinations (influenza, meningococcal, and/or COVID-19) and were screened for sexually transmitted infection. Eight patients completed the satisfaction survey and all said they liked the convenience of the telehealth visit.
 

Telehealth may reduce barriers for teens

Anthony Cheng, MD, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of the study, said he found the hybrid model promising.

One reason is that telehealth eliminates the need for transportation to medical appointments, which can be a barrier for adolescents.

Among the top causes of death for young people are mental health issues and addressing those, Dr. Cheng noted, is well-suited to a telehealth visit.

“There’s so much we can do if we can establish a relationship and maintain a relationship with our patients as young adults,” he said. “People do better when they have a regular source of care.”

He added that adolescents also have grown up communicating via screens so it’s often more comfortable for them to communicate with health care providers this way.

Dr. Cheng said adopting such a model may be difficult for providers reluctant to switch from the practice model with which they are most comfortable.

“We prefer to do things we have the most confidence in,” he said. “It does take an investment to train staff and build your own clinical comfort. If that experience wasn’t good over the past 3 years, you may be anxious to get back to your normal way of doing business.”

The authors and Dr. Cheng have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A telehealth primary care visit more than doubled the well-visit show rate for a cohort of hard-to-reach adolescents, results of a small pilot study show.

Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, led the pilot study and the project team, which included physicians, researchers, and experts in innovation, quality improvement, and data analytics.

Findings were published online in Annals of Family Medicine.

Keeping adolescents in consistent primary care can be challenging for many reasons. The study authors note, “Only 50% of adolescents have had a health supervision visit in the past year, missing a critical opportunity for clinicians to influence health, development, screening, and counseling.”

Interest high in hard-to-reach group

This study included a particularly hard-to-reach group of 18-year-old patients at an urban primary care clinic who were lost to follow-up and had Medicaid insurance. They had not completed a well visit in more than 2 years and had a history of no-show visits.

Interest in the pilot program was high. The authors write: “We contacted patients (or their caregivers) to gauge interest in a virtual well visit with a goal to fill five telehealth slots in one evening block with one clinician. Due to high patient interest and demand, we expanded to 15 slots over three evenings, filling the slots after contacting just 24 patients.”

Professional organizations have recommended a telehealth/in-person hybrid care model to meet hard-to-reach adolescents “wherever they are,” the authors note, but the concept has not been well studied.

Under the hybrid model, the first visit is through telehealth and in-person follow-up is scheduled as needed.

Navigators contacted patients to remind them of the appointment, and helped activate the patient portal and complete previsit screening questions for depression and other health risks.

Telehealth visits were billed as preventive visits and in-person follow-up visits as no-charge nurse visits, and these payments were supported by Medicaid.
 

Sharp increase in show rate

In the pilot study, of the 15 patients scheduled for the telehealth visit, 11 connected virtually (73% show rate). Of those, nine needed in-person follow-up, and five completed the follow-up.

Before the intervention, the average well-visit show rate for this patient group was 33%.

Clinicians counseled all the patients about substance use and safe sex. One patient screened positive for depression and was then connected to services. Two patients were started on birth control.

During the in-person follow-up, all patients received vaccinations (influenza, meningococcal, and/or COVID-19) and were screened for sexually transmitted infection. Eight patients completed the satisfaction survey and all said they liked the convenience of the telehealth visit.
 

Telehealth may reduce barriers for teens

Anthony Cheng, MD, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of the study, said he found the hybrid model promising.

One reason is that telehealth eliminates the need for transportation to medical appointments, which can be a barrier for adolescents.

Among the top causes of death for young people are mental health issues and addressing those, Dr. Cheng noted, is well-suited to a telehealth visit.

“There’s so much we can do if we can establish a relationship and maintain a relationship with our patients as young adults,” he said. “People do better when they have a regular source of care.”

He added that adolescents also have grown up communicating via screens so it’s often more comfortable for them to communicate with health care providers this way.

Dr. Cheng said adopting such a model may be difficult for providers reluctant to switch from the practice model with which they are most comfortable.

“We prefer to do things we have the most confidence in,” he said. “It does take an investment to train staff and build your own clinical comfort. If that experience wasn’t good over the past 3 years, you may be anxious to get back to your normal way of doing business.”

The authors and Dr. Cheng have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.

Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.

Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.

Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.

Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.

Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.

Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
 

More data are needed to tease out patterns

“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.

Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.

However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.

“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.

Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.

Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.

“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.

In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Receiving the first dose of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine at age 9, rather than bundling it with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines, appears to increase the likelihood that children will complete the HPV vaccine series, according to a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured youth presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The research was published ahead of print in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

Changing attitudes

“These findings are novel because they emphasize starting at age 9, and that is different than prior studies that emphasize bundling of these vaccines,” Kevin Ault, MD, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine and a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in an interview.

Dr. Ault was not involved in the study but noted that these findings support the AAP’s recommendation to start the HPV vaccine series at age 9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends giving the first dose of the HPV vaccine at ages 11-12, at the same time as the Tdap and meningitis vaccines. This recommendation to “bundle” the HPV vaccine with the Tdap and meningitis vaccines aims to facilitate provider-family discussion about the HPV vaccine, ideally reducing parent hesitancy and concerns about the vaccines. Multiple studies have shown improved HPV vaccine uptake when providers offer the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines.

However, shifts in parents’ attitudes have occurred toward the HPV vaccine since those studies on bundling: Concerns about sexual activity have receded while concerns about safety remain high. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society both advise starting the HPV vaccine series at age 9, based on evidence showing that more children complete the series when they get the first shot before age 11 compared to getting it at 11 or 12.

“The bundling was really to vaccinate people by the age of 13, thinking that onset of sexual activity was after that,” study author Sidika Kajtezovic, MD, a resident at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Obstetrics and Gynecology, said in an interview. But Dr. Kajtezovic said she delivers babies for 13-year-old patients. “Kids are having sex sooner or sooner.” It’s also clear that using the bundling strategy is not making up the entire gap right now: Ninety percent of children are getting the meningococcal vaccine while only 49% are getting the HPV vaccine, Dr. Kajtezovic pointed out. “There’s a disconnect happening there, even with the bundling,” she said.
 

Debundling vaccines

Dr. Kajtezovic and her colleagues used a national database of employee-sponsored health insurance to analyze the records of 100,857 children who were continuously enrolled in a plan from age 9 in 2015 to age 13 in 2019. They calculated the odds of children completing the HPV vaccine series based on whether they started the series before, at the same time as, or after the Tdap vaccination.

Youth who received the HPV vaccine before their Tdap vaccine had 38% greater odds of completing the series – getting both doses – than did those who received the HPV vaccine at the same time as the Tdap vaccine. Meanwhile, in line with prior evidence, those who got the first HPV dose after their Tdap were less likely – 68% lower odds – to complete the two- or three-dose (if starting above age 14) series.

The researchers identified several other factors that were linked to completing the HPV vaccine series. Females had greater odds than did males of completing the series, as did those living in urban, rather than rural, areas. Other factors associated with completing the series included living in the Northeast United States and receiving primary care from a pediatrician rather than a family medicine physician.
 

Timing is important

“I am encouraged by the findings of this study,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “However, I would have liked the authors to expand the age range a bit higher. There are data that continuing to discuss the HPV vaccine with parents and teens will increase uptake into the later teen years.”

One challenge is that research shows attendance at primary care visits declines in older adolescence. Since there is no second Tdap or meningitis shot, families need to return for the second HPV vaccine dose after those shots, though they could get the second dose at the same time as other two vaccines if they receive the first dose before age 11. There’s also evidence suggesting that providers find conversations about the HPV vaccine easier when sexual activity is not the focus.

“I often feel that, before a child reaches adolescence, they’re almost, in a way, not sexualized yet, so talking about cancer prevention for an 8- or 9-year-old sometimes sounds a little different to patients versus protecting your 12-year-old, who’s starting to go through adolescence and developing breasts” and other signs of puberty, Dr. Kajtezovic said. Keeping the focus of HPV vaccine discussions on cancer prevention also allows providers to point out the protection against anal cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer, and head and neck cancer. “They are horrible, and even if they’re treatable, they’re often very hard to treat at an advanced stage,” Dr. Kajtezovic said. “The surgery required is so life disabling and disfiguring.”

The HPV Roundtable advises continuing bundling at practices having success with it but encourages practices to consider earlier vaccination if their uptake is lagging. Quality improvement initiatives, such as earlier electronic medical record prompts and multi-level interventions in pediatric practices, have shown substantial increases in HPV vaccine uptake at 9 and 10 years old. One survey in 2021 found that one in five primary care providers already routinely recommend the HPV vaccine at ages 9-10, and nearly half of others would consider doing so.

“My hope is in the next few years, when [the CDC] refreshes their vaccine recommendations, that they will either unbundle it or move the bar a few years earlier so that you can initiate it to encourage earlier initiation,” Dr. Kajtezovic said.

Dr. Ault had no other disclosures besides prior service on ACIP. Dr. Kajtezovic had no disclosures.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.

Family physicians receive less private insurer reimbursement for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine than do pediatricians, according to a new analysis in Family Medicine.

HPV is the most expensive of all routine pediatric vaccines and the reimbursement by third-party payers varies widely. The concerns about HPV reimbursement often appear on clinician surveys.

This study, led by Yenan Zhu, PhD, who was with the department of public health sciences, college of medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, at the time of the research, found that, on average, pediatricians received higher reimbursement ($216.07) for HPV vaccine cost when compared with family physicians ($211.33), internists ($212.97), nurse practitioners ($212.91), and “other” clinicians who administer the vaccine ($213.29) (P values for all comparisons were < .001).

The final sample for this study included 34,247 clinicians.

The net return from vaccine cost reimbursements was lowest for family physicians ($0.34 per HPV vaccine dose administered) and highest for pediatricians ($5.08 per HPV vaccine dose administered).

“Adequate cost reimbursement by third-party payers is a critical enabling factor for clinicians to continue offering vaccines,” the authors wrote.

The authors concluded that “reimbursement for HPV vaccine costs by private payers is adequate; however, return margins are small for nonpediatric specialties.”
 

CDC, AAP differ in recommendations

In the United States, private insurers use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine list price as a benchmark.

Overall in this study, HPV vaccine cost reimbursement by private payers was at or above the CDC list price of $210.99 but below the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations ($263.74). 

The study found that every $1 increment in return was associated with an increase in HPV vaccine doses administered. That was highest for family physicians at 0.08% per dollar.

The modeling showed that changing the HPV vaccine reimbursement to the AAP-recommended level could translate to “an estimated 18,643 additional HPV vaccine doses administrated by pediatricians, 4,041 additional doses by family physicians, and 433 doses by ‘other’ specialties in 2017-2018.”

The authors noted that U.S. vaccination coverage has improved in recent years but initiation and completion rates are lower among privately insured adolescents (4.6% lower for initiation and 2.0% points lower for completion in 2021), compared with adolescents covered under public insurance.

Why the difference among specialties?

Variation in reimbursements might be tied to the ability to negotiate reimbursements for adolescent vaccines, the authors said.

“For instance, pediatricians may be able to negotiate higher cost reimbursement, compared with nonpediatric specialties, given that adolescents constitute a large fraction of their patient volume,” they wrote.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues wrote that it should be noted that HPV vaccine cost reimbursement to family practitioners was considerably less than other specialties and they are barely breaking even though they have the second-highest volume of HPV vaccinations (after pediatricians).

The authors acknowledged that it may not be possible to raise reimbursement to the AAP level, but added that “a reasonable increase that can cover direct and indirect expenses (acquisition cost, storage cost, personnel cost for monitoring inventory, insurance, waste, and lost opportunity costs) will reduce the financial strain on nonpediatric clinicians.” That may encourage clinicians to stock and offer the vaccine.
 

Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations. The models did not account for factors such as vaccination bundling, physicians’ recommendation style or differences in knowledge of the vaccination schedule.

The models were also not able to adjust for whether a clinic had reminder prompts in the electronic health records, the overhead costs of vaccines, or vaccine knowledge or hesitancy on the part of the adolescents’ parents.

Additionally, they used data from one private payer, which limits generalizability.

Researchers identified a sample of adolescents eligible for the HPV vaccine (9-14 years old) enrolled in a large private health insurance plan during 2017-2018. Data from states with universal or universal select vaccine purchasing were excluded. These states included Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

One coauthor reported receiving a consulting fee from Merck on unrelated projects. Another coauthor has provided consultancy to Value Analytics Labs on unrelated projects. All other authors declared no competing interests.