Infectious Disease Practitioner

Vaccination rates among kindergartners in the United States dipped below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% in 2020-2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from 47 states and the District of Columbia, reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, showed the rates dipped by about 1 percentage point, compared with the previous school year for state-required vaccines. Coverage nationally was 93.9% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, 93.6% for the required number of doses of DTaP, and 93.6% for the state-required doses of varicella vaccine.

“This might not sound like much,” Georgina Peacock, MD, MPH, acting director of CDC’s immunization services division said in a press briefing. “But it amounts to at least 35,000 more children across the United States that entered kindergarten without documentation of complete vaccination against common diseases like measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox.”

The report authors, led by Ranee Seither, MPH, with the immunization services division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said the COVID-19 pandemic played a large part in the dip as children missed doctors’ appointments and states relaxed requirements with remote instruction.

States reported reluctance by parents to schedule well-child appointments and reduced access to office visits as well as longer grace periods or provisional enrollment. There was also less submission of documentation by parents, less time for school nurses to follow-up with students to document vaccines, fewer staff members to conduct kindergarten vaccination coverage assessment, lower response rates from schools, and both extended and compressed kindergarten vaccination coverage data collection schedules.

“There’s a greater proportion of parents who are questioning routine vaccines,” Jason V. Terk, MD, a Texas pediatrician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the New York Times. He said misinformation “fed the fire of distrust and skepticism that is really sort of the new pandemic of hesitancy for routine vaccines.”

The authors of the CDC report wrote: “As schools continue to return to in-person learning, enforcement of vaccination policies and follow-up with undervaccinated students are important to improve vaccination coverage.”

They urged schools and immunization programs to reach out to first-time students, including kindergartners and first-graders, and follow up with undervaccinated students.

The rate of people having an exemption from at least one vaccine remained low at 2.2% and the percentage of children with exemptions decreased in 37 states. However, an additional 3.9% who did not have a vaccine exemption were not up to date for MMR, according to the report.

Mississippi and New York had the smallest percentage of exemptions (0.1%) and Idaho had the most (8.2%). In the 2019-2020 school year, 2.5% reported an exemption from at least one vaccine. Nationally, 0.2% of kindergartners had a medical exemption and 1.9% had a nonmedical exemption.

Vaccination rates also differed among states. The New York Times noted that Maryland had a 10% drop in MMR vaccine coverage, while Wisconsin, Georgia, Wyoming, and Kentucky had declines of about 5%.

Among states reporting the measures in 2020-2021, the proportion of kindergartners attending school with no documentation of required vaccinations or exemptions ranged from 0.1% (Pennsylvania and Virginia) to 8.3% (Maryland). The state with the lowest proportion of kindergarteners out of compliance was Florida (0.2%) and Indiana had the highest out-of-compliance rate at 16.6%.

Comparing states’ performance is difficult, the authors noted, because they vary as to which vaccine and number of doses they require and by what date and what documentation they require. They also vary by data collection methods; exemptions allowed; grace period rules and provisional enrollment.

The authors, Dr. Peacock, and Dr. Terk reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Vaccination rates among kindergartners in the United States dipped below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% in 2020-2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from 47 states and the District of Columbia, reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, showed the rates dipped by about 1 percentage point, compared with the previous school year for state-required vaccines. Coverage nationally was 93.9% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, 93.6% for the required number of doses of DTaP, and 93.6% for the state-required doses of varicella vaccine.

“This might not sound like much,” Georgina Peacock, MD, MPH, acting director of CDC’s immunization services division said in a press briefing. “But it amounts to at least 35,000 more children across the United States that entered kindergarten without documentation of complete vaccination against common diseases like measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox.”

The report authors, led by Ranee Seither, MPH, with the immunization services division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said the COVID-19 pandemic played a large part in the dip as children missed doctors’ appointments and states relaxed requirements with remote instruction.

States reported reluctance by parents to schedule well-child appointments and reduced access to office visits as well as longer grace periods or provisional enrollment. There was also less submission of documentation by parents, less time for school nurses to follow-up with students to document vaccines, fewer staff members to conduct kindergarten vaccination coverage assessment, lower response rates from schools, and both extended and compressed kindergarten vaccination coverage data collection schedules.

“There’s a greater proportion of parents who are questioning routine vaccines,” Jason V. Terk, MD, a Texas pediatrician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the New York Times. He said misinformation “fed the fire of distrust and skepticism that is really sort of the new pandemic of hesitancy for routine vaccines.”

The authors of the CDC report wrote: “As schools continue to return to in-person learning, enforcement of vaccination policies and follow-up with undervaccinated students are important to improve vaccination coverage.”

They urged schools and immunization programs to reach out to first-time students, including kindergartners and first-graders, and follow up with undervaccinated students.

The rate of people having an exemption from at least one vaccine remained low at 2.2% and the percentage of children with exemptions decreased in 37 states. However, an additional 3.9% who did not have a vaccine exemption were not up to date for MMR, according to the report.

Mississippi and New York had the smallest percentage of exemptions (0.1%) and Idaho had the most (8.2%). In the 2019-2020 school year, 2.5% reported an exemption from at least one vaccine. Nationally, 0.2% of kindergartners had a medical exemption and 1.9% had a nonmedical exemption.

Vaccination rates also differed among states. The New York Times noted that Maryland had a 10% drop in MMR vaccine coverage, while Wisconsin, Georgia, Wyoming, and Kentucky had declines of about 5%.

Among states reporting the measures in 2020-2021, the proportion of kindergartners attending school with no documentation of required vaccinations or exemptions ranged from 0.1% (Pennsylvania and Virginia) to 8.3% (Maryland). The state with the lowest proportion of kindergarteners out of compliance was Florida (0.2%) and Indiana had the highest out-of-compliance rate at 16.6%.

Comparing states’ performance is difficult, the authors noted, because they vary as to which vaccine and number of doses they require and by what date and what documentation they require. They also vary by data collection methods; exemptions allowed; grace period rules and provisional enrollment.

The authors, Dr. Peacock, and Dr. Terk reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Vaccination rates among kindergartners in the United States dipped below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% in 2020-2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from 47 states and the District of Columbia, reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, showed the rates dipped by about 1 percentage point, compared with the previous school year for state-required vaccines. Coverage nationally was 93.9% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, 93.6% for the required number of doses of DTaP, and 93.6% for the state-required doses of varicella vaccine.

“This might not sound like much,” Georgina Peacock, MD, MPH, acting director of CDC’s immunization services division said in a press briefing. “But it amounts to at least 35,000 more children across the United States that entered kindergarten without documentation of complete vaccination against common diseases like measles, whooping cough, and chickenpox.”

The report authors, led by Ranee Seither, MPH, with the immunization services division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said the COVID-19 pandemic played a large part in the dip as children missed doctors’ appointments and states relaxed requirements with remote instruction.

States reported reluctance by parents to schedule well-child appointments and reduced access to office visits as well as longer grace periods or provisional enrollment. There was also less submission of documentation by parents, less time for school nurses to follow-up with students to document vaccines, fewer staff members to conduct kindergarten vaccination coverage assessment, lower response rates from schools, and both extended and compressed kindergarten vaccination coverage data collection schedules.

“There’s a greater proportion of parents who are questioning routine vaccines,” Jason V. Terk, MD, a Texas pediatrician and a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the New York Times. He said misinformation “fed the fire of distrust and skepticism that is really sort of the new pandemic of hesitancy for routine vaccines.”

The authors of the CDC report wrote: “As schools continue to return to in-person learning, enforcement of vaccination policies and follow-up with undervaccinated students are important to improve vaccination coverage.”

They urged schools and immunization programs to reach out to first-time students, including kindergartners and first-graders, and follow up with undervaccinated students.

The rate of people having an exemption from at least one vaccine remained low at 2.2% and the percentage of children with exemptions decreased in 37 states. However, an additional 3.9% who did not have a vaccine exemption were not up to date for MMR, according to the report.

Mississippi and New York had the smallest percentage of exemptions (0.1%) and Idaho had the most (8.2%). In the 2019-2020 school year, 2.5% reported an exemption from at least one vaccine. Nationally, 0.2% of kindergartners had a medical exemption and 1.9% had a nonmedical exemption.

Vaccination rates also differed among states. The New York Times noted that Maryland had a 10% drop in MMR vaccine coverage, while Wisconsin, Georgia, Wyoming, and Kentucky had declines of about 5%.

Among states reporting the measures in 2020-2021, the proportion of kindergartners attending school with no documentation of required vaccinations or exemptions ranged from 0.1% (Pennsylvania and Virginia) to 8.3% (Maryland). The state with the lowest proportion of kindergarteners out of compliance was Florida (0.2%) and Indiana had the highest out-of-compliance rate at 16.6%.

Comparing states’ performance is difficult, the authors noted, because they vary as to which vaccine and number of doses they require and by what date and what documentation they require. They also vary by data collection methods; exemptions allowed; grace period rules and provisional enrollment.

The authors, Dr. Peacock, and Dr. Terk reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who underwent immediate surgery to treat a ruptured or abscessed appendix had lower risk of infectious complications, compared with those whose complicated appendicitis was managed without surgery, according to new research.

Most cases that began with nonoperative management eventually required surgery, and the operative delay was associated with an increased risk of preterm labor, preterm delivery, and abortion.

“Our study findings may help to define the preferred management strategy in complicated appendicitis during pregnancy to be immediate operation,” Kazuhide Matsushima, MD, an assistant professor of clinical surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study was published in JAMA Network Open.

While acute appendicitis is relatively rare during pregnancy, it is the most common nonobstetric emergency in pregnant women, Dr. Matsushima said. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 700 to 1 in 1,500 pregnancies, and some data suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for perforation and other forms of complicated appendicitis.

National guidelines support appendectomy as the first-line treatment for pregnant women with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, but there is no clear guidance on the best treatment approach for managing complicated appendicitis in this population, the authors note.

To better understand how surgical and nonoperational interventions affected outcomes, investigators analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from January 2003 to September 2015 to identify pregnant women with complicated appendicitis. The condition was defined as “acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis” and “acute appendicitis with peritoneal abscess.” Patients were excluded if they had complications such as ectopic pregnancy and hydatidiform mole.

Investigators split the patients into three groups: those who underwent immediate operation for complicated appendicitis, those whose appendicitis was successfully managed without surgery, and those in whom nonoperative management of their condition failed, resulting in delayed surgery. Failed nonoperative management was defined as at least 1 day of nonoperative management followed by a laparoscopic or open appendectomy.

Of the 8,087 pregnant women identified during the study with complicated appendicitis, 55.5% underwent immediate appendectomy, 11.8% were successfully treated without surgical intervention, and 32.7% had delayed operations after initial failed nonoperative management. There was no significant difference in preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion between the immediate operative and successful nonoperative groups; however, the successful nonoperative group was more than twice as likely to experience premature rupture of membranes (odds ratio, 2.77; P = .03). Patients successfully treated without surgery also were at higher risk for infections such as amniotic infection (OR, 4.35; P < .001), pneumonia (OR, 2.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR, 1.52; P = .01), compared with patients who underwent immediate operation.

Patients who had delayed surgery were 45% more likely to experience preterm delivery, preterm labor, or abortion (OR, 1.45; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The delayed surgery group was also at higher risk for antepartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.56; P = .03) and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.44; P = .002). They were more than four times as likely to have amniotic infection (OR, 4.74; P < .001), twice as likely to contract pneumonia (OR, 2.01; P < .001), and 58% more likely to develop sepsis (OR, 1.58; P < .001), compared with the immediate surgery group. The researchers calculated that every day surgery was delayed, the risk of preterm delivery, preterm labor, and abortion rose by 23% (OR, 1.23; P < .001).

Delayed surgery and successful nonoperative management were also associated with higher hospital charges and longer hospital stays.

Because this was a retrospective study, there are some limitations to the findings, Dr. Matsushima said, and therefore it should not be used to justify changing standards of care; however, it does give more information on the risks associated with different interventions. “It’s very important to have a discussion with the patient and make a shared decision,” he told this news organization, “because each option has significant risks and benefits.”

Because the data were from a database, he added, the research team was not able to see if outcomes from immediate surgery, nonoperative management, and delayed surgery differed in each trimester.

Kenneth W. Sharp, MD, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., agreed that the study does have limitations, such as lack of information on how complicated appendicitis was identified and diagnosed; however, the study does provide guidance to surgeons in a surgical area with “very sparse literature,” he told this news organization. Dr. Sharp is also a regent from the American College of Surgeons, which arranged the interview.

“Especially with these very complicated patients, it was never clear what to do,” he said. “With the recent studies showing that treatment of appendicitis with antibiotics works for a large number of people, people start extrapolating [those findings] to complicated appendicitis and they start extrapolating it to pregnant women, none of which the studies were meant to show anything about,” he said.

This analysis gives additional information to inform treatment decisions in pregnant women who may be hesitant to undergo this abdominal surgery because of possible complications, like pregnancy loss, he added. “Now, I can say to them that the data would suggest that with your particular complicated appendicitis, we should operate sooner, not later.”

Dr. Matsushima and Dr. Sharp have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

An overall ninefold increase in COVID-19 antibody levels can be seen with a longer interval between first and second doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine in people without prior infection, according to data from the U.K. government’s SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) study.

This interval-dependent antibody level varied by age, with those aged 45-54 years showing an 11-fold increase with a longer dosing interval (greater than 10 weeks vs. 2-4 weeks). People younger than age 25 years showed a 13-fold increase with the longer interval, but participant numbers were low in this sub-group.

Overall antibody levels in infection-naive participants were 1,268.72 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL (1,043.25-1,542.91) in those with a 2-4–week interval, compared with 11,479.73 BAU/mL (10,742.78-12,267.24) (P < .0001), in those with at least a 10-week interval between doses.

The work is the latest analysis from SIREN, which measured antibody levels in the blood from nearly 6,000 health care workers from across the United Kingdom. Study lead Ashley Otter, PhD, technical lead for SIREN serology at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), will present the work on Tuesday at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), Lisbon.

In an interview, Dr. Otter noted that, “it is important to remember that antibody levels are only one aspect of the immune response, and in our recent vaccine effectiveness analysis, we found that dosing intervals did not affect protection against infection.”

The study, which appeared in the March issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that after the second dose of vaccine, there was about a 2.5–fold difference in antibody levels between those who had prior infection of 16.052 (14.071-18.312) BAU/mL, compared with 7.050 (6.634-7.491) BAU/mL in infection-naive individuals (P < .0001).

Following the first dose only, antibody levels were up to 10 times higher in participants who were previously infected, compared with infection-naive individuals. This effect lasted up to 8 months and then began to plateau.
 

Natural infection increased antibody levels

Dr. Otter remarked that, “COVID-19 antibody levels are high in those people who were previously naturally infected and vaccinated, highlighting that vaccination provides an additional benefit to these individuals.”

This news organization asked Charlotte Thålin, PhD, an immunologist from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, to comment on the study. Dr. Thålin studies a cohort similar to SIREN, called the Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort. “The new data from the SIREN emphasizes the importance of the number of antigenic exposures and the time interval between them, whether it be exposure through vaccination or exposure through infection.” 

“We see similar data in our Swedish COMMUNITY health care worker cohort,” Dr. Thålin continued, “where infection prior to vaccination yields a more than twofold enhancement in antibodies, neutralizing breadth, and T cell responses, and an even larger increase with a longer time interval between infection and vaccination.”

However, she cautioned that they now see a high rate of Omicron vaccine breakthrough infections, and this is also true in people with previous infection and three vaccine doses.

“As we approach a second booster – a fourth vaccine dose – we need to consider that many individuals will have had up to five to six antigen exposures within a short period of time, sometimes within a year,” she pointed out. “This is a whole new scenario, with a lot of different combinations of vaccine and infection-induced immunity. We do not yet know the impact of these frequent immune exposures, and we now need to monitor immune responses following Omicron and booster doses closely.”

SIREN originally aimed to understand how much protection people got after developing a primary infection and why they might become reinfected with COVID-19. Following the rollout of the United Kingdom’s vaccination program, the protective effects of vaccination against COVID-19 were investigated, as well as why some people still become ill after being vaccinated, Dr. Otter explained.

In this latest analysis, Dr. Otter and colleagues assessed anti-spike binding antibodies in serum samples from a total of 5,871 health care workers, with 3,989 after one dose (at least 21 days) and 1,882 after two doses (at least 14 days).

Most participants were women (82.3%), of White ethnicity (87%), and came from across the United Kingdom.

Participants were also categorized into those who had evidence of natural COVID-19 infection (confirmed by a PCR test or assumed because of their antibody profile) or those who were infection-naive. Almost all (> 99%) of those who were infection-naive seroconverted after vaccination.

The primary outcome was anti-spike antibody levels assessed according to dose, previous infection, dosing interval, age, ethnicity, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive disease such as immune system cancers, rheumatologic disease, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, obesity, and chronic neurologic disease. 

In the infection-naive group, the mean antibody (anti-S titer) was 75.48 BAU/mL after the first vaccine dose, and this rose to 7,049.76 BAU/mL after the second dose.

The much higher antibody titer with the second dose in infection-naive individuals “is what gives you the most protection, as your antibody titers are at their peak. They then start to gradually wane from this peak,” said Dr. Otter.

In the post-infection group, antibody titers also rose (2,111.08 BAU/mL after first dose and 16,052.39 BAU/mL after second dose), although less so than in the infection-naive group, because of the additional exposure of infection, added Dr. Otter.

Antibody levels also varied according to time elapsed between natural infection and dose 1 of vaccination. With a 3-month interval, antibody levels were 1,970.83 (1,506.01-2,579.1) BAU/mL, compared with 13,759.31 (8,097.78-23,379.09) BAU/mL after a 9-month interval. Antibody levels after one dose in those previously infected are higher than the infection-naive because “previous infection, then vaccination, is likely explained by T-cell expansion upon a boost with a second antigen exposure, and then a maturing memory B-cell response that has been demonstrated up to 6 months,” explained Dr. Otter.

 

Timing of fourth dose

By March of this year, 86.2% of the U.K. population aged over 12 years had received at least two doses, but with rises in disease prevalence and the spread of variants of concern, further work is ongoing to understand the waning of the immune response, level of protection, and why some individuals develop COVID-19 even when double-vaccinated.

This news organization asked Susanna Dunachie, BMChB, professor of infectious diseases, University of Oxford, U.K., what the interval findings might mean for the timing of the fourth dose of vaccine across the U.K. population.

In the United Kingdom, fourth doses are being given to people who are 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those with weakened immune systems. “To make decisions about fourth doses for healthy people, we need to see how quickly antibody and T-cell responses drop,” said Ms. Dunachie, who is part of the large SIREN study team but was not involved in the analysis led by Dr. Otter. “Current research suggests that the T-cell response may be better maintained than the antibody response, and less affected by variants like Omicron.”

She explained the balance between antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination. “It is likely that antibodies that neutralize the virus are important for preventing any infection at all, and these unfortunately do fall in time, but T-cell responses are better sustained and help keep people out of [the] hospital,” she said.

Ms. Dunachie added that it was necessary to wait and observe what happens next with SARS-CoV-2 evolution, as well as wait for longer follow-up after the third dose in healthy people. “On current evidence, my estimate is we postpone decisions on fourth doses in healthy people to late summer/autumn.”

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2021 for the second straight year, with only heart disease and cancer causing more deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said April 22.

About 693,000 people died of heart disease in 2021, with 605,000 dying of cancer and 415,000 of COVID, the CDC said, citing provisional data that might be updated later.

Unintentional injuries were the fourth-leading cause of death, increasing to 219,000 in 2021 from 201,000 in 2020. Influenza and pneumonia dropped out of the top 10 leading causes of death and suicide moved into 10th place.

Overall, about 3,458,697 deaths were reported in the United States in 2021. The age-adjusted death rate was 841.6 deaths per 100,000 people, an increase of 0.7% from 2020. The 2021 death rate was the highest since 2003, the CDC said.

The overall number of COVID deaths in 2021 increased around 20% over 2020, when around 384,000 people died from the virus, the CDC said. COVID deaths in 2021 peaked for the weeks ending Jan. 16 and Sept. 11, following holiday periods.

The demographics of COVID mortality changed slightly, the CDC said in a second report.

Blacks accounted for 13.3% of COVID deaths in 2021 and Hispanics 16.5%, down several percentage points from 2020, the CDC said. Asians made up 3.1% of COVID deaths for 2021, a drop from 3.6% in 2020. White people accounted for 65.2% of COVID deaths in 2021, an increase from 59.6% in 2020.

Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic Black or African American had the highest overall death rates for COVID, the CDC said.

Breaking the data down by age, the number of COVID deaths among people aged 75 years and older dropped to 178,000 in 2021 from around 207,000 in 2020. The numbers went up in other age groups. Among people aged 65-75, about 101,000 died of COVID in 2021, up from around 76,000 in 2020.

“The results of both studies highlight the need for greater effort to implement effective interventions,” the CDC said in a statement. “We must work to ensure equal treatment in all communities in proportion to their need for effective interventions that can prevent excess COVID-19 deaths.”

Since the pandemic began, about 991,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-related causes, the most among all nations in the world.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

Marcus Welby, MD, was a fictitious hometown doctor featured in a TV drama with the same name that was shown on ABC from 1969 to 1976. Played by actor Robert Young, Dr. Welby treated his patients through their bouts with breast cancer, impotence, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Welby likely wouldn’t recognize the practice of medicine today, where nearly three quarters (73.9%) of physicians are employed by hospitals, health systems, or corporate entities, according to a recent report sponsored by the Physicians Advocacy Institute and prepared by consulting firm Avalere Health.

“COVID-19 drove physicians to leave private practice for employment at an even more rapid pace than we’ve seen in recent years, and these trends continued to accelerate in 2021,” Kelly Kenney, chief executive officer of Physicians Advocacy Institute, said in an announcement. “This study underscores the fact that physicians across the nation are facing severe burnout and strain. The pressures of the pandemic forced many independent physicians to make difficult decisions to sell their practices, health insurers, or other corporate entities.”

Corporate entities are defined in the report as health insurers, private equity firms, and umbrella corporate entities that own multiple physician practices.

“The pandemic has been just brutal ... for nurses and physicians who are caring for patients,” Ms. Kenney told this news organization. “Between the financial stress that the pandemic certainly had on practices, because they certainly had little revenue for a while, and then also we know that the stress that physicians have felt mentally, you can’t overstate that.”

More than half of physician practices owned by hospitals, corporate entities

The Physicians Advocacy Institute has tracked changes in physician employment consistently since 2012, said Ms. Kenney. In 2012, 25% of physicians were employed; that has jumped to nearly 74%, which means the past decade has brought a world of change to the nation’s physicians.

“These are essentially small-business people ... and they were primarily trained to care for patients,” said Ms. Kenney, referring to physicians in independent practice. Still, she understands why physicians would seek employment in the face of “the crushing kind of pressure of having to deal with 20 different payers, pay overhead, and keep the lights on [at the practice].”

According to the report, 108,700 physicians left independent practice to enter employment with hospitals or other corporate entities in the 3-year period that ended in 2021. Seventy-six percent of that shift to employed status among physicians has occurred since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

From a regional perspective, the report found continued growth among employed physicians across all U.S. regions in the last half of 2020. Hospital- or corporate-owned physician practices increased between 28% and 44%, while the percentage of hospital- or corporate-employed physicians increased between 13% and 24%.

Eighty percent of physicians in the Midwest are employed by hospitals or corporations, which leads the rest of the country, per the report. That’s followed by the Northeast, the West, and the South. Overall, the number of physicians working for such entities increased in all regions.

The report revealed that physician employment by corporations such as health insurers and venture capital firms grew from 92,400 in January 2019 to 142,900 in January 2022.

Hospitals and corporate entities acquired 36,200 physician practices (representing 38% growth) between 2019 and 2021, and the majority of these moves occurred since the pandemic’s start, according to the report.

Value-based care, venture capital firms driving change

Ms. Kenney pointed to value-based care as driving much of this activity by hospitals. “We all embrace [value-based payment], because we need to get a handle on cost, and we want better quality [but] those trends tend to favor integrated systems and systems that can handle a lot of risk and populations of patients.”

Still, the moves by private equity firms and health insurers in this space is relatively new, said Ms. Kenney, who added that her organization started tracking this trend 3 years ago. She pointed to a “marked acceleration” in the trend toward employing physicians and the sale of practices in the 18 months following the pandemic’s start; nonhospital corporate entities drove that steep increase, she said.

Ms. Kenney calls for further study and “guardrails” to respond to “that force in the health care system,” referring to the acquisition of practices by entities such as private equity firms. “Are these big [health care] systems going to continue to see patients in underserved areas, rural areas, and Medicaid patients if it doesn’t make sense financially to do so?

“That’s what we’re teeing up with this research,” added Ms. Kenney. “We are providing information that starts some conversations around what we might want to think about in terms of policies to ensure that we don’t impact patients’ access to care.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute represents more than 170,000 physicians and medical students. Avalere Health used the IQVIA OneKey database for the report. The researchers studied the 3-year period from Jan. 1, 2019, to Jan. 1, 2022.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

One of the largest studies to date on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination confirms an increased risk with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in young men and shows that the risk is higher with the Moderna than with the Pfizer vaccine.

The study also suggests for the first time that in young men 16 to 24 years of age, the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 infection.

The population-based study involved data on 23.1 million residents across four Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – 74% of whom had received two vaccine doses and 7% of whom had received one dose.

By linking data from high-quality nationwide health registers on COVID-19 vaccination, infection rates, and myocarditis diagnoses, the researchers were able to evaluate the risk for myocarditis by vaccine product, vaccination dose number, sex, and age.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

The results confirm that the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is highest in young men 16 to 24 years of age after the second dose.

For men in this age group who received two doses of the same vaccine, data were compatible, with between four and seven excess myocarditis events in 28 days per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 per 100,000 individuals after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“This is one of the largest studies on this topic to date. The first population studies were in Israel, with 5 million individuals, and looked at just the Pfizer vaccine. We have data on 23 million people from Scandinavia that include both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines,” senior author Rickard Ljung, MD, Swedish Medical Products Agency, told this news organization.

“We show a clearly higher risk of myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine. This has been suggested before, but our data confirm definitively that the Moderna vaccine has a higher risk of myocarditis than the Pfizer vaccine,” he added.

“In the group at highest risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination – young men aged 16 to 24 – the Pfizer vaccine shows a five times higher risk of myocarditis versus the unvaccinated cohort, while the Moderna vaccine shows a 15 times higher risk,” Dr. Ljung noted.

After seeing these data, the Swedish regulatory authority is no longer recommending use of the Moderna vaccine for people younger than 30 years, Dr. Ljung said. Similar recommendations have been made in Norway and Finland.

The researchers report that their finding of a higher risk for myocarditis after the Moderna vaccine than after the Pfizer vaccine in young men is in line with data from the Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But they point out that, compared with previous studies, the current study had the advantage of data analyzed according to a common protocol from four different countries and that showed similar directions of associations, despite considerable differences in previous COVID-19 infection levels and lockdown policies.

Risk higher with vaccination than infection?

For what is believed to be the first time, the Scandinavian data also suggest a higher risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination with both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines than after COVID-19 infection in young men 16 to 24 years.

Although previous studies have shown that males in this age group have the highest risk for myocarditis after vaccination, it has always been suggested that the risk after vaccination is lower than the risk after infection. The Scandinavian data suggest otherwise for this age group.

Dr. Ljung explained that the myocarditis risk after COVID infection is very hard to study.

“It is highly dependent on the testing strategy,” he said. “For example, in the first half of 2020, the only people being tested were those admitted to hospital, so studies would have included the sickest patients and would therefore likely have found a higher rate of myocarditis. But this current Scandinavian dataset only included individuals with a positive COVID test after August 2020, reflecting a broader range of people.”

The researchers found an excess rate of myocarditis of 3.26 per 100,000 individuals within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test among all males, and 1.37 per 100,000 individuals among males 16 to 24 years of age.

“We show that the risk of myocarditis after COVID infection is lower in younger people and higher in older people, but the opposite is true after COVID vaccination, where the risk of myocarditis is higher in younger people and lower in older people,” Dr. Ljung said.

The study was not able to look at severity of myocarditis but did record length of hospital stay, which was similar in patients who developed myocarditis after vaccination and those in the unvaccinated cohort (4 to 5 days). Deaths were rare, with no deaths in people younger than 40 years.

“I think we can say that in people aged over 40, the risk of myocarditis is greater with infection than with vaccination, but in those under 40, it is not so clear. And our data suggest that for young men aged 16 to 24 years, the risk of myocarditis after COVID vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine is higher than after COVID infection,” Dr. Ljung commented.

Although the Swedish regulatory agency has already stopped recommending use of Moderna vaccine in those younger than 30 years on the basis of these data, Dr. Ljung was reluctant to make any recommendations regarding the use of the Pfizer vaccine in young males, saying it was up to individual public-health agencies to makes these decisions. 

But he pointed out that the current study only looked at myocarditis, and COVID infection can result in many other complications that can lead to hospitalization and death, which needs to be taken into account when assessing the risk and benefit of vaccination.

Dr. Ljung noted that the current data only applied to the first two doses of the vaccines; data after booster injections have not been included, although the researchers are looking at that now.

What to advise patients?

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, Ann Marie Navar, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is editor of JAMA Cardiology, and Robert Bonow, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology, try to explain how these data can inform the way health care professionals communicate with their patients about vaccination.

They point out the “good news,” that older adults who are at highest risk for COVID-19 complications appear to be at extremely low risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis.

They note that for both men and women older than 40 years, the excess number of cases of myocarditis after vaccination was fewer than two in 100,000 vaccinees across all vaccines studied, and the death toll from COVID-19 in the United States as of March was more than 200 per 100,000 population.

“Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection in older adults and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing severe infection and death, the benefits of immunization in those older than 40 years clearly outweigh the risks,” the editors say.

But given these data in young men, they suggest that health care professionals consider recommending the Pfizer vaccine over the Moderna vaccine for certain populations, including young men and other individuals for whom concerns about myocarditis present a barrier to immunization.

The editors also point out that although the risk for myocarditis after COVID-19 immunization is real, this low risk must be considered in the context of the overall benefit of the vaccine.

“At the individual level, immunization prevents not only COVID-19-related myocarditis but also severe disease, hospitalization, long-term complications after COVID-19 infection, and death. At the population level, immunization helps to decrease community spread, decrease the chances of new variants emerging, protect people who are immunocompromised, and ensure our health care system can continue to provide for our communities,” they conclude.

Dr. Ljung reports grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution outside the submitted work and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr. Navar reports personal fees from Pfizer and AstraZeneca, outside the scope of this work.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Black and senior patients are more likely to be overprescribed antibiotics, according to a new study of 7 billion trips to health care centers – findings that doctors say warrant a further look into unequal prescription practices.

Researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that 64% of antibiotic prescriptions to Black patients and 74% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients aged 65 years and older were deemed inappropriate. White patients, meanwhile, received prescriptions that were deemed inappropriate 56% of the time.

Most of those prescriptions were written for conditions like nonbacterial skin problems, viral respiratory tract infections, and bronchitis – none of which can be treated with antibiotics.

The study – which used data from visits to U.S. doctors’ offices, hospitals, and EDs – will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbon.

Researchers also found that 58% of antibiotic prescriptions to patients with a Hispanic or Latin American background were also not appropriate for use.

“Our results suggest that Black and [Hispanic/Latino] patients may be not be properly treated and are receiving antibiotic prescriptions even when not indicated,” researcher Eric Young, PharmD, said in a news release.

Doctors typically will prescribe an antibiotic if they fear a patient’s symptoms may lead to an infection, Dr. Young said. This is particularly true if the doctor believes a patient is unlikely to return for a follow-up, which, he says, “more frequently happens in minority populations.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are not needed, and up to 50% of antibiotics prescribed are either unnecessary or the wrong type and/or dosage.

Overprescribing of antibiotics has long plagued the medical field. In 2015, the administration of then-President Barack Obama released a National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, with a goal to cut unneeded outpatient antibiotic use by at least half by 2020.

When antibiotics are overused, bacteria that infect us evolve to become stronger and defeat the drugs meant to save us.

Though the findings still need more study, at first glance they provide a concerning but unsurprising look at health inequities, said Rachel Villanueva, MD, president of the National Medical Association, the leading organization representing doctors and patients of African descent.

“We do know that these kind of inequities have existed for a long time in our society,” said Dr. Villanueva, a clinical assistant professor at the New York University. “They’re not new and have been well documented for many, many years. But this deserves further research and further evaluation.”

“This is just the first step – we need to do some more evaluation on how different communities are treated in the health care system. Why is this occurring?”

For patients 65 and older, it may be less about bias and more about having a hard time diagnosing certain conditions within that population, said Preeti Malani, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and director of the National Poll on Healthy Aging.

For example, she said, some older patients may have a harder time describing their symptoms. In some cases, doctors may give these patients a prescription to fill in case the issue does not clear up, because it could be harder for them to get back into the office.

“Sometimes it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on,” Dr. Malani said. “Something I’ve done in my own practice in the past is say, ‘I’m giving you a prescription, but I don’t want you to fill it yet.’”

Dr. Malani said inappropriately prescribing antibiotics can be especially dangerous for people 65 and older because of drug interactions and complications like Achilles tendon rupture and a Clostridioides difficile infection, which can arise after antibiotic use.

“We need more information on what drives this in older adults,” she said.

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

Approximately one-third of critical care workers reported some degree of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on survey results from 939 health care professionals.

The emotional response of professionals in a critical care setting in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been well studied, Robyn Branca, PhD, and Paul Branca, MD, of Carson Newman University and the University of Tennessee Medical Center, both in Knoxville, wrote in an abstract presented at the virtual Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and somatization is low in the general population overall, but the researchers predicted that these conditions increased among workers in critical care settings early in the pandemic.

To assess the prevalence of psychological problems during that time, they sent an email survey on April 7, 2020, to members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The survey collected data on demographics, perceived caseload, and potential course of the pandemic. The survey also collected responses to assessments for depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9), anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Scale–7), and symptom somatization (using the PHQ-15).

Of the 939 survey respondents, 37% were male, 61.4% were female, and 1.4% gave another or no response.

Overall, 32.3% reported encountering 0-50 COVID-19 cases, 31.1% had encountered 51-200 cases, 12.5% had encountered 201-500 cases, 9.4% had encountered 501-1000 cases, and 13.7% had encountered more than 1,000 cases.

Based on the PHQ-9 depression scale, 44.9% of the respondents had minimal symptoms, 31.1% mild symptoms, 14.3% moderate symptoms, and 9.7% met criteria for severe depressive symptoms. Based on the GAD-7 anxiety scale, 35.5% had minimal symptoms, 32.9% mild, 16.8% moderate, and 14.8% had severe symptoms. Based on the PHQ-15 somatization scale, 39.6% of respondents showed minimal symptoms, whereas 38.2% showed mild symptoms, 17.3% moderate symptoms, and 4.9% had a severe degree of somatic symptoms.

The study findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports; however, the results indicate that a high percentage of critical care workers experienced significant, diagnosable levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, the researchers said.

The standard guidance is to pursue individual intervention for anyone with scores of moderate or severe on the scales used in the survey, the researchers said.

Therefore, the findings represent “an alarming degree of mental health impact,” they emphasized. “Immediate mitigation efforts are needed to preserve the health of our ICU workforce.”

The study is important at this time because clinician fatigue and occupational stress are at endemic levels, Bernard Chang, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview. “It is vital that we take stock of how frontline workers in critical care settings are doing overall,” said Dr. Chang.  

Dr. Chang, who was not involved with the study but has conducted research on mental health in frontline health care workers during the pandemic, said he was not surprised by the findings. “This work builds on the growing body of literature in the pandemic noting high levels of stress, fatigue, and depression/anxiety symptoms across many frontline workers, from emergency department staff, first responders and others. These are all data points highlighting the urgent need for a broad safety net, not only for patients but the providers serving them.”

The takeaway message: “Clinicians are often so focused on providing care for their patients that they may overlook the need to care for their own well-being and mental health,” said Dr. Chang.

As for additional research, “we need to now take this important data and build on creating and identifying tangible solutions to improve the morale of the acute care/health care workforce to ensure career longevity, professional satisfaction, and overall well-being,” Dr. Chang emphasized. Mental health and morale affect not only health care workers, but also the patients they care for. Well–cared for health care providers can be at their best to provide the optimal care for their patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one-third of critical care workers reported some degree of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on survey results from 939 health care professionals.

The emotional response of professionals in a critical care setting in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been well studied, Robyn Branca, PhD, and Paul Branca, MD, of Carson Newman University and the University of Tennessee Medical Center, both in Knoxville, wrote in an abstract presented at the virtual Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and somatization is low in the general population overall, but the researchers predicted that these conditions increased among workers in critical care settings early in the pandemic.

To assess the prevalence of psychological problems during that time, they sent an email survey on April 7, 2020, to members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The survey collected data on demographics, perceived caseload, and potential course of the pandemic. The survey also collected responses to assessments for depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9), anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Scale–7), and symptom somatization (using the PHQ-15).

Of the 939 survey respondents, 37% were male, 61.4% were female, and 1.4% gave another or no response.

Overall, 32.3% reported encountering 0-50 COVID-19 cases, 31.1% had encountered 51-200 cases, 12.5% had encountered 201-500 cases, 9.4% had encountered 501-1000 cases, and 13.7% had encountered more than 1,000 cases.

Based on the PHQ-9 depression scale, 44.9% of the respondents had minimal symptoms, 31.1% mild symptoms, 14.3% moderate symptoms, and 9.7% met criteria for severe depressive symptoms. Based on the GAD-7 anxiety scale, 35.5% had minimal symptoms, 32.9% mild, 16.8% moderate, and 14.8% had severe symptoms. Based on the PHQ-15 somatization scale, 39.6% of respondents showed minimal symptoms, whereas 38.2% showed mild symptoms, 17.3% moderate symptoms, and 4.9% had a severe degree of somatic symptoms.

The study findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports; however, the results indicate that a high percentage of critical care workers experienced significant, diagnosable levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, the researchers said.

The standard guidance is to pursue individual intervention for anyone with scores of moderate or severe on the scales used in the survey, the researchers said.

Therefore, the findings represent “an alarming degree of mental health impact,” they emphasized. “Immediate mitigation efforts are needed to preserve the health of our ICU workforce.”

The study is important at this time because clinician fatigue and occupational stress are at endemic levels, Bernard Chang, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview. “It is vital that we take stock of how frontline workers in critical care settings are doing overall,” said Dr. Chang.  

Dr. Chang, who was not involved with the study but has conducted research on mental health in frontline health care workers during the pandemic, said he was not surprised by the findings. “This work builds on the growing body of literature in the pandemic noting high levels of stress, fatigue, and depression/anxiety symptoms across many frontline workers, from emergency department staff, first responders and others. These are all data points highlighting the urgent need for a broad safety net, not only for patients but the providers serving them.”

The takeaway message: “Clinicians are often so focused on providing care for their patients that they may overlook the need to care for their own well-being and mental health,” said Dr. Chang.

As for additional research, “we need to now take this important data and build on creating and identifying tangible solutions to improve the morale of the acute care/health care workforce to ensure career longevity, professional satisfaction, and overall well-being,” Dr. Chang emphasized. Mental health and morale affect not only health care workers, but also the patients they care for. Well–cared for health care providers can be at their best to provide the optimal care for their patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one-third of critical care workers reported some degree of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on survey results from 939 health care professionals.

The emotional response of professionals in a critical care setting in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been well studied, Robyn Branca, PhD, and Paul Branca, MD, of Carson Newman University and the University of Tennessee Medical Center, both in Knoxville, wrote in an abstract presented at the virtual Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and somatization is low in the general population overall, but the researchers predicted that these conditions increased among workers in critical care settings early in the pandemic.

To assess the prevalence of psychological problems during that time, they sent an email survey on April 7, 2020, to members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The survey collected data on demographics, perceived caseload, and potential course of the pandemic. The survey also collected responses to assessments for depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9), anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Scale–7), and symptom somatization (using the PHQ-15).

Of the 939 survey respondents, 37% were male, 61.4% were female, and 1.4% gave another or no response.

Overall, 32.3% reported encountering 0-50 COVID-19 cases, 31.1% had encountered 51-200 cases, 12.5% had encountered 201-500 cases, 9.4% had encountered 501-1000 cases, and 13.7% had encountered more than 1,000 cases.

Based on the PHQ-9 depression scale, 44.9% of the respondents had minimal symptoms, 31.1% mild symptoms, 14.3% moderate symptoms, and 9.7% met criteria for severe depressive symptoms. Based on the GAD-7 anxiety scale, 35.5% had minimal symptoms, 32.9% mild, 16.8% moderate, and 14.8% had severe symptoms. Based on the PHQ-15 somatization scale, 39.6% of respondents showed minimal symptoms, whereas 38.2% showed mild symptoms, 17.3% moderate symptoms, and 4.9% had a severe degree of somatic symptoms.

The study findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports; however, the results indicate that a high percentage of critical care workers experienced significant, diagnosable levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, the researchers said.

The standard guidance is to pursue individual intervention for anyone with scores of moderate or severe on the scales used in the survey, the researchers said.

Therefore, the findings represent “an alarming degree of mental health impact,” they emphasized. “Immediate mitigation efforts are needed to preserve the health of our ICU workforce.”

The study is important at this time because clinician fatigue and occupational stress are at endemic levels, Bernard Chang, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview. “It is vital that we take stock of how frontline workers in critical care settings are doing overall,” said Dr. Chang.  

Dr. Chang, who was not involved with the study but has conducted research on mental health in frontline health care workers during the pandemic, said he was not surprised by the findings. “This work builds on the growing body of literature in the pandemic noting high levels of stress, fatigue, and depression/anxiety symptoms across many frontline workers, from emergency department staff, first responders and others. These are all data points highlighting the urgent need for a broad safety net, not only for patients but the providers serving them.”

The takeaway message: “Clinicians are often so focused on providing care for their patients that they may overlook the need to care for their own well-being and mental health,” said Dr. Chang.

As for additional research, “we need to now take this important data and build on creating and identifying tangible solutions to improve the morale of the acute care/health care workforce to ensure career longevity, professional satisfaction, and overall well-being,” Dr. Chang emphasized. Mental health and morale affect not only health care workers, but also the patients they care for. Well–cared for health care providers can be at their best to provide the optimal care for their patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychiatric disorders are tied to an increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, particularly among older adults, new research shows.

“Psychiatric disorders remained significantly associated with incident breakthrough infections above and beyond sociodemographic and medical factors, suggesting that mental health is important to consider in conjunction with other risk factors,” wrote the investigators, led by Aoife O’Donovan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders “should be prioritized for booster vaccinations and other critical preventive efforts, including increased SARS-CoV-2 screening, public health campaigns, or COVID-19 discussions during clinical care,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Elderly most vulnerable

The researchers reviewed the records of 263,697 veterans who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just over a half (51.4%) had one or more psychiatric diagnoses within the last 5 years and 14.8% developed breakthrough COVID-19 infections, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Psychiatric diagnoses among the veterans included depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, adjustment disorder, substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, ADHD, dissociation, and eating disorders.

In the overall sample, a history of any psychiatric disorder was associated with a 7% higher incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection in models adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09) and a 3% higher incidence in models additionally adjusted for underlying medical comorbidities and smoking (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05).

Most psychiatric disorders were associated with a higher incidence of breakthrough infection, with the highest relative risk observed for substance use disorders (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 -1.21) and adjustment disorder (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16) in fully adjusted models.

Older vaccinated veterans with psychiatric illnesses appear to be most vulnerable to COVID-19 reinfection.

In veterans aged 65 and older, all psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection, with increases in the incidence rate ranging from 3% to 24% in fully adjusted models.

In the younger veterans, in contrast, only anxiety, adjustment, and substance use disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection in fully adjusted models.

Psychotic disorders were associated with a 10% lower incidence of breakthrough infection among younger veterans, perhaps because of greater social isolation, the researchers said.
 

Risky behavior or impaired immunity?

“Although some of the larger observed effect sizes are compelling at an individual level, even the relatively modest effect sizes may have a large effect at the population level when considering the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the global reach and scale of the pandemic,” Dr. O’Donovan and colleagues wrote.

They noted that psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders, have been associated with impaired cellular immunity and blunted response to vaccines. Therefore, it’s possible that those with psychiatric disorders have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

It’s also possible that immunity following vaccination wanes more quickly or more strongly in people with psychiatric disorders and they could have less protection against new variants, they added.

Patients with psychiatric disorders could be more apt to engage in risky behaviors for contracting COVID-19, which could also increase the risk for breakthrough infection, they said.

The study was supported by a UCSF Department of Psychiatry Rapid Award and UCSF Faculty Resource Fund Award. Dr. O’Donovan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Psychiatric disorders are tied to an increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, particularly among older adults, new research shows.

“Psychiatric disorders remained significantly associated with incident breakthrough infections above and beyond sociodemographic and medical factors, suggesting that mental health is important to consider in conjunction with other risk factors,” wrote the investigators, led by Aoife O’Donovan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders “should be prioritized for booster vaccinations and other critical preventive efforts, including increased SARS-CoV-2 screening, public health campaigns, or COVID-19 discussions during clinical care,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Elderly most vulnerable

The researchers reviewed the records of 263,697 veterans who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just over a half (51.4%) had one or more psychiatric diagnoses within the last 5 years and 14.8% developed breakthrough COVID-19 infections, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Psychiatric diagnoses among the veterans included depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, adjustment disorder, substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, ADHD, dissociation, and eating disorders.

In the overall sample, a history of any psychiatric disorder was associated with a 7% higher incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection in models adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09) and a 3% higher incidence in models additionally adjusted for underlying medical comorbidities and smoking (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05).

Most psychiatric disorders were associated with a higher incidence of breakthrough infection, with the highest relative risk observed for substance use disorders (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 -1.21) and adjustment disorder (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16) in fully adjusted models.

Older vaccinated veterans with psychiatric illnesses appear to be most vulnerable to COVID-19 reinfection.

In veterans aged 65 and older, all psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection, with increases in the incidence rate ranging from 3% to 24% in fully adjusted models.

In the younger veterans, in contrast, only anxiety, adjustment, and substance use disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection in fully adjusted models.

Psychotic disorders were associated with a 10% lower incidence of breakthrough infection among younger veterans, perhaps because of greater social isolation, the researchers said.
 

Risky behavior or impaired immunity?

“Although some of the larger observed effect sizes are compelling at an individual level, even the relatively modest effect sizes may have a large effect at the population level when considering the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the global reach and scale of the pandemic,” Dr. O’Donovan and colleagues wrote.

They noted that psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders, have been associated with impaired cellular immunity and blunted response to vaccines. Therefore, it’s possible that those with psychiatric disorders have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

It’s also possible that immunity following vaccination wanes more quickly or more strongly in people with psychiatric disorders and they could have less protection against new variants, they added.

Patients with psychiatric disorders could be more apt to engage in risky behaviors for contracting COVID-19, which could also increase the risk for breakthrough infection, they said.

The study was supported by a UCSF Department of Psychiatry Rapid Award and UCSF Faculty Resource Fund Award. Dr. O’Donovan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Psychiatric disorders are tied to an increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, particularly among older adults, new research shows.

“Psychiatric disorders remained significantly associated with incident breakthrough infections above and beyond sociodemographic and medical factors, suggesting that mental health is important to consider in conjunction with other risk factors,” wrote the investigators, led by Aoife O’Donovan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders “should be prioritized for booster vaccinations and other critical preventive efforts, including increased SARS-CoV-2 screening, public health campaigns, or COVID-19 discussions during clinical care,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Elderly most vulnerable

The researchers reviewed the records of 263,697 veterans who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just over a half (51.4%) had one or more psychiatric diagnoses within the last 5 years and 14.8% developed breakthrough COVID-19 infections, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Psychiatric diagnoses among the veterans included depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, adjustment disorder, substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, ADHD, dissociation, and eating disorders.

In the overall sample, a history of any psychiatric disorder was associated with a 7% higher incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection in models adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09) and a 3% higher incidence in models additionally adjusted for underlying medical comorbidities and smoking (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05).

Most psychiatric disorders were associated with a higher incidence of breakthrough infection, with the highest relative risk observed for substance use disorders (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 -1.21) and adjustment disorder (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16) in fully adjusted models.

Older vaccinated veterans with psychiatric illnesses appear to be most vulnerable to COVID-19 reinfection.

In veterans aged 65 and older, all psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection, with increases in the incidence rate ranging from 3% to 24% in fully adjusted models.

In the younger veterans, in contrast, only anxiety, adjustment, and substance use disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection in fully adjusted models.

Psychotic disorders were associated with a 10% lower incidence of breakthrough infection among younger veterans, perhaps because of greater social isolation, the researchers said.
 

Risky behavior or impaired immunity?

“Although some of the larger observed effect sizes are compelling at an individual level, even the relatively modest effect sizes may have a large effect at the population level when considering the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the global reach and scale of the pandemic,” Dr. O’Donovan and colleagues wrote.

They noted that psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders, have been associated with impaired cellular immunity and blunted response to vaccines. Therefore, it’s possible that those with psychiatric disorders have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

It’s also possible that immunity following vaccination wanes more quickly or more strongly in people with psychiatric disorders and they could have less protection against new variants, they added.

Patients with psychiatric disorders could be more apt to engage in risky behaviors for contracting COVID-19, which could also increase the risk for breakthrough infection, they said.

The study was supported by a UCSF Department of Psychiatry Rapid Award and UCSF Faculty Resource Fund Award. Dr. O’Donovan reported no relevant disclosures.

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