User login
COVID booster shot poll: People ‘don’t think they need one’
Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.
The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling.
So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.
Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.
Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.
“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.
Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.
Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.
“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.
The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling.
So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.
Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.
Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.
“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.
Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.
Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.
“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.
The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling.
So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.
Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.
Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.
“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.
Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.
Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.
“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
HIV vaccine trial makes pivotal leap toward making ‘super antibodies’
The announcement comes from the journal Science, which published phase 1 results of a small clinical trial for a vaccine technology that aims to cause the body to create a rare kind of cell.
“At the most general level, the trial results show that one can design vaccines that induce antibodies with prespecified genetic features, and this may herald a new era of precision vaccines,” William Schief, PhD, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute and study coauthor, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The study was the first to test the approach in humans and was effective in 97% – or 35 of 36 – participants. The vaccine technology is called “germline targeting.” Trial results show that “one can design a vaccine that elicits made-to-order antibodies in humans,” Dr. Schief said in a news release.
In addition to possibly being a breakthrough for the treatment of HIV, the vaccine technology could also impact the development of treatments for flu, hepatitis C, and coronaviruses, study authors wrote.
There is no cure for HIV, but there are treatments to manage how the disease progresses. HIV attacks the body’s immune system, destroys white blood cells, and increases susceptibility to other infections, AAAS summarized. More than 1 million people in the United States and 38 million people worldwide have HIV.
Previous HIV vaccine attempts were not able to cause the production of specialized cells known as “broadly neutralizing antibodies,” CNN reported.
“Call them super antibodies, if you want,” University of Minnesota HIV researcher Timothy Schacker, MD, who was not involved in the research, told CNN. “The hope is that if you can induce this kind of immunity in people, you can protect them from some of these viruses that we’ve had a very hard time designing vaccines for that are effective. So this is an important step forward.”
Study authors said this is just the first step in the multiphase vaccine design, which so far is a theory. Further study is needed to see if the next steps also work in humans, and then if all the steps can be linked together and can be effective against HIV.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The announcement comes from the journal Science, which published phase 1 results of a small clinical trial for a vaccine technology that aims to cause the body to create a rare kind of cell.
“At the most general level, the trial results show that one can design vaccines that induce antibodies with prespecified genetic features, and this may herald a new era of precision vaccines,” William Schief, PhD, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute and study coauthor, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The study was the first to test the approach in humans and was effective in 97% – or 35 of 36 – participants. The vaccine technology is called “germline targeting.” Trial results show that “one can design a vaccine that elicits made-to-order antibodies in humans,” Dr. Schief said in a news release.
In addition to possibly being a breakthrough for the treatment of HIV, the vaccine technology could also impact the development of treatments for flu, hepatitis C, and coronaviruses, study authors wrote.
There is no cure for HIV, but there are treatments to manage how the disease progresses. HIV attacks the body’s immune system, destroys white blood cells, and increases susceptibility to other infections, AAAS summarized. More than 1 million people in the United States and 38 million people worldwide have HIV.
Previous HIV vaccine attempts were not able to cause the production of specialized cells known as “broadly neutralizing antibodies,” CNN reported.
“Call them super antibodies, if you want,” University of Minnesota HIV researcher Timothy Schacker, MD, who was not involved in the research, told CNN. “The hope is that if you can induce this kind of immunity in people, you can protect them from some of these viruses that we’ve had a very hard time designing vaccines for that are effective. So this is an important step forward.”
Study authors said this is just the first step in the multiphase vaccine design, which so far is a theory. Further study is needed to see if the next steps also work in humans, and then if all the steps can be linked together and can be effective against HIV.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The announcement comes from the journal Science, which published phase 1 results of a small clinical trial for a vaccine technology that aims to cause the body to create a rare kind of cell.
“At the most general level, the trial results show that one can design vaccines that induce antibodies with prespecified genetic features, and this may herald a new era of precision vaccines,” William Schief, PhD, a researcher at the Scripps Research Institute and study coauthor, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The study was the first to test the approach in humans and was effective in 97% – or 35 of 36 – participants. The vaccine technology is called “germline targeting.” Trial results show that “one can design a vaccine that elicits made-to-order antibodies in humans,” Dr. Schief said in a news release.
In addition to possibly being a breakthrough for the treatment of HIV, the vaccine technology could also impact the development of treatments for flu, hepatitis C, and coronaviruses, study authors wrote.
There is no cure for HIV, but there are treatments to manage how the disease progresses. HIV attacks the body’s immune system, destroys white blood cells, and increases susceptibility to other infections, AAAS summarized. More than 1 million people in the United States and 38 million people worldwide have HIV.
Previous HIV vaccine attempts were not able to cause the production of specialized cells known as “broadly neutralizing antibodies,” CNN reported.
“Call them super antibodies, if you want,” University of Minnesota HIV researcher Timothy Schacker, MD, who was not involved in the research, told CNN. “The hope is that if you can induce this kind of immunity in people, you can protect them from some of these viruses that we’ve had a very hard time designing vaccines for that are effective. So this is an important step forward.”
Study authors said this is just the first step in the multiphase vaccine design, which so far is a theory. Further study is needed to see if the next steps also work in humans, and then if all the steps can be linked together and can be effective against HIV.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM SCIENCE
Ohio measles outbreak sickens nearly 60 children
None of the children had been fully vaccinated against measles, and 23 of them have been hospitalized, local officials report.
“Measles can be very serious, especially for children under age 5,” Columbus Public Health spokesperson Kelli Newman told CNN.
Nearly all of the infected children are under age 5, with 12 of them being under 1 year old.
“Many children are hospitalized for dehydration,” Ms. Newman told CNN in an email. “Other serious complications also can include pneumonia and neurological conditions such as encephalitis. There’s no way of knowing which children will become so sick they have to be hospitalized. The safest way to protect children from measles is to make sure they are vaccinated with MMR.”
Of the 59 infected children, 56 were unvaccinated and three had been partially vaccinated. The MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is recommended for children beginning at 12 months old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. Two doses are needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and the second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years old.
Measles “is one of the most infectious agents known to man,” the academy says.
It is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people around that person will also become infected if they are not protected, the CDC explains. Measles infection causes a rash and a fever that can spike beyond 104° F. Sometimes, the illness can lead to brain swelling, brain damage, or death.
Last month, the World Health Organization and CDC warned that 40 million children worldwide missed their measles vaccinations in 2021, partly due to pandemic disruptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that many parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to misinformation.
Infants are at heightened risk because they are too young to be vaccinated.
The academy offered several tips for protecting unvaccinated infants during a measles outbreak:
- Limit your baby’s exposure to crowds, other children, and people with cold symptoms.
- Disinfect objects and surfaces at home regularly, because the measles virus can live on surfaces or suspended in the air for 2 hours.
- If possible, feed your baby breast milk, because it has antibodies to prevent and fight infections.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
None of the children had been fully vaccinated against measles, and 23 of them have been hospitalized, local officials report.
“Measles can be very serious, especially for children under age 5,” Columbus Public Health spokesperson Kelli Newman told CNN.
Nearly all of the infected children are under age 5, with 12 of them being under 1 year old.
“Many children are hospitalized for dehydration,” Ms. Newman told CNN in an email. “Other serious complications also can include pneumonia and neurological conditions such as encephalitis. There’s no way of knowing which children will become so sick they have to be hospitalized. The safest way to protect children from measles is to make sure they are vaccinated with MMR.”
Of the 59 infected children, 56 were unvaccinated and three had been partially vaccinated. The MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is recommended for children beginning at 12 months old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. Two doses are needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and the second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years old.
Measles “is one of the most infectious agents known to man,” the academy says.
It is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people around that person will also become infected if they are not protected, the CDC explains. Measles infection causes a rash and a fever that can spike beyond 104° F. Sometimes, the illness can lead to brain swelling, brain damage, or death.
Last month, the World Health Organization and CDC warned that 40 million children worldwide missed their measles vaccinations in 2021, partly due to pandemic disruptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that many parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to misinformation.
Infants are at heightened risk because they are too young to be vaccinated.
The academy offered several tips for protecting unvaccinated infants during a measles outbreak:
- Limit your baby’s exposure to crowds, other children, and people with cold symptoms.
- Disinfect objects and surfaces at home regularly, because the measles virus can live on surfaces or suspended in the air for 2 hours.
- If possible, feed your baby breast milk, because it has antibodies to prevent and fight infections.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
None of the children had been fully vaccinated against measles, and 23 of them have been hospitalized, local officials report.
“Measles can be very serious, especially for children under age 5,” Columbus Public Health spokesperson Kelli Newman told CNN.
Nearly all of the infected children are under age 5, with 12 of them being under 1 year old.
“Many children are hospitalized for dehydration,” Ms. Newman told CNN in an email. “Other serious complications also can include pneumonia and neurological conditions such as encephalitis. There’s no way of knowing which children will become so sick they have to be hospitalized. The safest way to protect children from measles is to make sure they are vaccinated with MMR.”
Of the 59 infected children, 56 were unvaccinated and three had been partially vaccinated. The MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is recommended for children beginning at 12 months old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. Two doses are needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and the second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years old.
Measles “is one of the most infectious agents known to man,” the academy says.
It is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people around that person will also become infected if they are not protected, the CDC explains. Measles infection causes a rash and a fever that can spike beyond 104° F. Sometimes, the illness can lead to brain swelling, brain damage, or death.
Last month, the World Health Organization and CDC warned that 40 million children worldwide missed their measles vaccinations in 2021, partly due to pandemic disruptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that many parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to misinformation.
Infants are at heightened risk because they are too young to be vaccinated.
The academy offered several tips for protecting unvaccinated infants during a measles outbreak:
- Limit your baby’s exposure to crowds, other children, and people with cold symptoms.
- Disinfect objects and surfaces at home regularly, because the measles virus can live on surfaces or suspended in the air for 2 hours.
- If possible, feed your baby breast milk, because it has antibodies to prevent and fight infections.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Vaccination cuts long COVID risk for rheumatic disease patients
Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).
“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”
Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”
Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection
The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.
A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).
The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.
Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes
At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).
Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).
Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).
Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.
“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”
Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.
“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”
Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.
Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.
Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).
Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).
The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”
Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.
This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.
The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).
“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”
Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”
Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection
The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.
A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).
The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.
Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes
At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).
Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).
Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).
Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.
“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”
Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.
“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”
Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.
Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.
Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).
Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).
The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”
Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.
This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.
The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).
“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”
Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”
Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection
The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.
A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).
The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.
Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes
At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).
Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).
Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).
Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.
“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”
Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.
“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”
Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.
Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.
Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).
Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).
The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”
Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.
This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.
The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Immunity debt and the tripledemic
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.
RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).
It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).
Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.
Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).
The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.
As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.
A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.
The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.
Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.
Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).
Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.
RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).
It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).
Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.
Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).
The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.
As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.
A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.
The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.
Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.
Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).
Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.
RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).
It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).
Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.
Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).
The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.
As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.
A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.
The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.
Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.
Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).
Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Have long COVID? Newest booster vaccines may help you
Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.
Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.
“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.
There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”
Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.”
In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients.
A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.
Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.
A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.
Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.
“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.
“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital.
Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”
Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.
Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.
Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.
Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”
One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.
While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.
“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.
Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.
“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.
There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”
Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.”
In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients.
A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.
Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.
A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.
Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.
“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.
“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital.
Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”
Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.
Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.
Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.
Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”
One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.
While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.
“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.
Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.
“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.
There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”
Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.”
In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients.
A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.
Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.
A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.
Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.
“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.
“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.
It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital.
Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”
Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.
Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.
Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.
Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”
One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.
While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.
“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Infant BCG vaccine protects only those under age 5 years
Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.
The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.
Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.
Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
Primary outcomes
The study’s main findings included the following:
- The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
- Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
- There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
- Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
- BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
- Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.
“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.
Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.
“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”
Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.
Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”
Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.
Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”
The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
Adults unprotected
Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”
Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
Are boosters needed?
The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.
Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”
Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.
“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.
“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
Nonspecific immune protection
One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.
However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.
Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.
“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”
A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New vaccines needed
The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.
Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.
Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.
With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.
“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.
Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.
The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.
Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.
Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
Primary outcomes
The study’s main findings included the following:
- The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
- Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
- There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
- Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
- BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
- Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.
“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.
Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.
“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”
Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.
Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”
Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.
Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”
The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
Adults unprotected
Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”
Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
Are boosters needed?
The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.
Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”
Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.
“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.
“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
Nonspecific immune protection
One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.
However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.
Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.
“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”
A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New vaccines needed
The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.
Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.
Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.
With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.
“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.
Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.
The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.
Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.
Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
Primary outcomes
The study’s main findings included the following:
- The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
- Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
- There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
- Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
- BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
- Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.
“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.
Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.
“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”
Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.
Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”
Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.
Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”
The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
Adults unprotected
Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”
Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
Are boosters needed?
The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.
Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”
Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.
“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.
“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
Nonspecific immune protection
One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.
However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.
Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.
“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”
A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New vaccines needed
The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.
Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.
Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.
With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.
“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.
Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH
Covid vax prevents death in children regardless of variant
The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.
However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.
In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.
Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.
The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.
Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).
During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).
Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.
Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.
The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.
“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
Study limitations and strengths
The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.
Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.
The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say
“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted.
The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.
However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.
Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.
“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”
“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”
Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.
However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.
In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.
Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.
The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.
Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).
During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).
Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.
Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.
The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.
“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
Study limitations and strengths
The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.
Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.
The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say
“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted.
The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.
However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.
Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.
“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”
“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”
Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.
However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.
In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.
Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.
The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.
Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).
During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).
Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.
Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.
The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.
“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
Study limitations and strengths
The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.
Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.
The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say
“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted.
The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.
However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.
Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.
“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”
“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”
Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
FROM THE BMJ
People living with HIV are a model population for vaccination
TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.
PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.
The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).
Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.
“It’s a missed opportunity.”
A highly compliant group
The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.
The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.
Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate
Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”
Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.
“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
Trusted information sources
Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.
In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.
“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”
How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
Overcoming barriers
A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.
When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.
Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”
It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.
PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.
The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).
Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.
“It’s a missed opportunity.”
A highly compliant group
The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.
The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.
Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate
Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”
Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.
“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
Trusted information sources
Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.
In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.
“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”
How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
Overcoming barriers
A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.
When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.
Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”
It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TAMPA – People living with HIV (PLWH) were more likely than other populations to get vaccinated for flu and COVID-19, to seek reputable sources of information, and to be connected through essential community organizations that share essential health and wellness information, according to the results of a large survey.
PLWH, therefore, would have been an ideal model population for creating and disseminating effective messaging around COVID-19 immunizations earlier in the pandemic, said Kathleen Gallagher, MPH, an epidemiologist, researcher, and health services administrator at the Patient Advocate Foundation.
The PLWH community can still offer valuable insights into effective ways to reach out to people, to disseminate correct information, and to link people with resources, Ms. Gallagher said during a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).
Local, community-based organizations “are the people that these individuals trust, they are people entrenched in their community, and they have existing relationships with them in terms of getting vaccinated and listening to their concerns,” Ms. Gallagher said.
“It’s a missed opportunity.”
A highly compliant group
The July 2021 survey of 271 PLWH was part of a larger, longitudinal survey of 1,400 people with any chronic illness asked about attitudes and barriers to vaccination. The PLWH population was important to focus on, the researchers note, because they could be potentially high risk for more serious COVID-19 outcomes.
The PLWH group was 81% White and 90% male, and 83% were age 56 or older. In addition, 86% had an annual household income below $48,000.
Ninety-three percent of the PLWH group had had flu vaccination in the prior 3 years and received at least one COVID-19 vaccination.
Unable vs. unwilling to vaccinate
Ms. Gallagher and colleagues found 12 people (4%) in the PLWH group did not get vaccinated against COVID-19. It’s a small number, “so you have to take this with a grain of salt,” she said. “But we asked them why they were hesitant. They either were unable or unwilling – and the unable part is not surprising.”
Those who were unable to get vaccinated were either homebound or had concerns about being in a clinic where they could be exposed to COVID while waiting to get the vaccine.
“And then there were some who were just not willing” to get vaccinated, Ms. Gallagher said. She added most cited vaccine safety concerns and “a lot of the misinformation or confusing information around efficacy.”
Trusted information sources
Although people reported getting COVID-19 vaccine information from multiple sources, including online and from television, 64% or nearly two-thirds sought information from their doctors or health care teams.
In fact, doctors emerged as the most trusted source, as indicated by 72% of PLWH.
“I was a little surprised that doctors scored so highly because, sometimes in other cohorts that we looked at, it wasn’t the case,” Ms. Gallagher said. However, she added, a lot of PLWH “have a very strong trust bond with their provider because this is a very personal, very sensitive diagnosis.”
How did social media score? “A whopping 1%,” she said. “So at least this was a savvy group, and they realized that that was not the place to go for vaccination information.”
Overcoming barriers
A lack of vaccine availability at the time of their appointment was the number one barrier to immunization. Also, a small number of people said knowing someone who had an adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination was a barrier for them. Ms. Gallagher explained that, by definition in the survey, an adverse reaction to vaccination had to be serious enough to drive people to seek medical care.
When asked to comment on the poster, Andrew Komensky, RN, told this news organization that he found the results “interesting, because I’m an infection preventionist, in addition to being an HIV nurse.” He is director of infection prevention and control at CharterCARE Health Partners, Providence, R.I.
Mr. Komensky said he was surprised that a high proportion of PLWH cited their doctor – and not their nurse – as the most trusted source of information. “In my experience in COVID care ... it was a nursing staff who had most of the contact with patients, who did most of the education, and provided most of the information surrounding vaccination and potential side effects.”
It made sense to Mr. Komensky that the PLWH population would be compliant with vaccinations. “People who are living with HIV do everything they possibly can just to stay healthy.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANAC 2022
More vaccinated people dying of COVID as fewer get booster shots
“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.
People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.
Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.
- A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the said).
- People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
- Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.
The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.
“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.
The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.
A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.
“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.
They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.
People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.
Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.
- A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the said).
- People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
- Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.
The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.
“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.
The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.
A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.
“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.
They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.
People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.
Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.
- A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the said).
- People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
- Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.
The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.
“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.
The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.
A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.
“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.
They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.