User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
FDA expands use of SLIT pollen allergy treatment to children
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.
Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years.
The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.
“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release.
Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.
Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.
Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).
The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.
In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.
Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.
Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years.
The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.
“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release.
Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.
Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.
Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).
The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.
In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.
Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new indication for ALK’s under-the-tongue immunotherapy tablet Ragwitek (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) to treat ragweed pollen–induced hay fever in children aged 5-17 years.
Ragwitek received FDA approval in 2014 to treat short ragweed pollen–induced hay fever, with or without allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, in adults aged 18-65 years.
The approval for Ragwitek comes with a boxed warning regarding a risk for life-threatening allergic reactions associated with the immunotherapy treatment, including anaphylaxis and severe laryngopharyngeal restriction. The package insert specifies that physicians should prescribe autoinjectable epinephrine with the drug.
“Ragwitek tablets provide a new immunotherapy treatment option for children and adolescents with seasonal ragweed allergies which often causes uncomfortable nasal symptoms and red, itchy eyes during the late summer and early fall,” David I. Bernstein, MD, University of Cincinnati, Bernstein Clinical Research, said in a company press release.
Short ragweed pollen is one of the most common weed allergies. Allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, affects 10%-30% of the population worldwide, according to the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology. In the United States, approximately 7.7% of adults and 7.2% of children were diagnosed with it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The new indication was based partly on data from a phase 3 clinical trial in children with short ragweed–induced allergic rhinitis, or hay fever, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In the study, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the treatment in 1,022 participants aged 5-17 years with a history of ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitivity to ragweed over a 20- to 28-week treatment period.
Researchers found that Ragwitek improved symptoms in children and adolescents and decreased their use of symptom-relieving medication, compared with placebo.
Among children and adolescents aged 5-17 years, the most common adverse reactions reported were throat irritation/tickle (48.3% in the Ragwitek group vs. 17.7% in the placebo group), itching in the mouth (47.8% vs. 11.2%), itching in the ear (33.9% vs. 6.3%), mouth pain (18.9% vs. 4.5%), swelling of the lips (13.8% vs. 1.2%), nausea (11.5% vs. 3.3%), swelling of the tongue (11.3% vs. 0.8%), throat swelling (10.7% vs. 1.6%), and stomach pain (10.1% vs. 4.5%).
The FDA also recommends that Ragwitek not be prescribed to people with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma, those with a history of severe systemic allergic reactions, and those with a history of eosinophilic esophagitis. The immunotherapy treatment also may not be suitable for people who are unresponsive to epinephrine or inhaled bronchodilators.
In addition, the treatment is not approved for the immediate relief of allergic symptoms in children or adults. The once-daily treatment, which contains an extract from short ragweed pollen, should begin 12 weeks before the start of ragweed pollen season and continue throughout the season, according to the FDA.
Dr. Bernstein said that the under-the-tongue immunotherapy works by targeting the specific allergy trigger and reducing allergy symptoms by “stimulating the immune system.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 infection conveys imperfect immunity in young adults
Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.
A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.
The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.
An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.
“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.
CHARM initiative
Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.
CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.
At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.
Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.
Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.
The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
Holes in immunologic armor
Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.
In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.
Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).
It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).
Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.
“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.
Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
Lessons
Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.
Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.
Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.
“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.
Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.
“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”
The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”
The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.
Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.
A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.
The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.
An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.
“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.
CHARM initiative
Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.
CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.
At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.
Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.
Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.
The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
Holes in immunologic armor
Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.
In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.
Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).
It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).
Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.
“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.
Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
Lessons
Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.
Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.
Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.
“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.
Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.
“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”
The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”
The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.
Do your patients think that getting COVID-19 is fully protective against subsequent reinfection? Tell it to the Marines.
A study of U.S. Marine recruits on their way to boot camp at Parris Island, S.C., showed that those who were seropositive at baseline, indicating prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2, remained at some risk for reinfection. They had about one-fifth the risk of subsequent infection, compared with seronegative recruits during basic training, but reinfections did occur.
The study, by Stuart C. Sealfon, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and colleagues, was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
“Although antibodies induced by initial infection are largely protective, they do not guarantee effective SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity or immunity against subsequent infection,” they wrote.
An infectious disease specialist who was not involved in the study said that the findings provide further evidence about the level of immunity acquired after an infection.
“It’s quite clear that reinfections do occur, they are of public health importance, and they’re something we need to be mindful of in terms of advising patients about whether a prior infection protects them from reinfection,” Mark Siedner, MD, MPH, a clinician and researcher in the division of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
The study results reinforce that “not all antibodies are the same,” said Sachin Gupta, MD, an attending physician in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. “We’re seeing still that 10% of folks who have antibodies can get infected again,” he said in an interview.
CHARM initiative
Dr. Sealfon and colleagues presented an analysis of data from the ironically named CHARM (COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines) prospective study.
CHARM included U.S. Marine recruits, most of them male, aged 18-20 years, who were instructed to follow a 2-week unsupervised quarantine at home, after which they reported to a Marine-supervised facility for an additional 2-week quarantine.
At baseline, participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) seropositivity, defined as a dilution of 1:150 or more on receptor-binding domain and full-length spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
The recruits filled out questionnaires asking them to report any of 14 specific COVID-19–related symptoms or any other unspecified symptom, as well as demographic information, risk factors, and a brief medical history.
Investigators tested recruits for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay at weeks 0, 1, and 2 of quarantine, and any who had positive PCR results during quarantine were excluded.
Participants who had three negative swab PCR results during quarantine and a baseline serology test at the beginning of the supervised quarantine period – either seronegative or seropositive – then went on to enjoy their basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.
The participants were followed prospectively with PCR tests at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both the seropositive and seronegative groups, and sera were obtained at the same time.
Holes in immunologic armor
Full data were available for a total of 189 participants who were seropositive and 2,247 who were seronegative at enrollment.
In all, 19 of 189 seropositive recruits (10%) had at least one PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6-week follow-up period. This translated into an incidence of 1.1 cases per person-year.
Of the 2,247 participants seronegative at baseline, 1,079 tested positive (6.2 cases per person-year; incidence rate ratio 0.18).
It appeared that antibodies provided some protection for seropositive recruits, as evidenced by a higher likelihood of infection among those with lower baseline full-length spike protein IgG titers than in those with higher baseline titers (hazard ratio 0.4, P < .001).
Among the seropositive participants who did acquire a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral loads in mid-turbinate nasal swabs were about 10-fold lower than in seronegative recruits who acquired infections during follow-up.
“This finding suggests that some reinfected individuals could have a similar capacity to transmit infection as those who are infected for the first time. The rate at which reinfection occurs after vaccines and natural immunity is important for estimating the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to suppress the pandemic,” the investigators wrote.
Baseline neutralizing antibody titers were detected in 45 of the first 54 seropositive recruits who remained PCR negative throughout follow-up, but also in 6 of 19 seropositive participants who became infected during the 6 weeks of observation.
Lessons
Both Dr. Siedner and Dr. Gupta agreed with the authors that the risks for reinfection that were observed in young, physically fit people may differ for other populations, such as women (only 10% of seropositive recruits and 8% of seronegative recruits were female), older patients, or those who are immunocompromised.
Given that the adjusted odds ratio for reinfection in this study was nearly identical to that of a recent British study comparing infection rates between seropositive and seronegative health care workers, the risk of reinfection for other young adults and for the general population may be similar, Dr. Sealfon and colleagues wrote.
Adding to the challenge of reaching herd immunity is the observation that some patients who have recovered from COVID-19 are skeptical about the need for further protection.
“There are patients who feel like vaccination is of low benefit to them, and I think these are the same people who would be hesitant to get the vaccine anyway,” Dr. Gupta said.
Although no vaccine is perfect – the vaccine failure rate from the mRNA-based vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/Biontech is about 5% – the protections they afford are unmistakable, Dr. Siedner said.
“I think it’s important to make the distinction that most postvaccination infections by and large have been very mild,” he said. “In people with normal immune systems, we have not seen an onslaught of postvaccination infections requiring hospitalization. Even if people do get infected after vaccination, the vaccines protect people from severe infection, and that’s what we want them to do.”
The investigators stated, “Young adults, of whom a high proportion are asymptomatically infected and become seropositive in the absence of known infection, can be an important source of transmission to more vulnerable populations. Evaluating the protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by seropositivity in young adults is important for determining the need for vaccinating previously infected individuals in this age group.”
The study was funded by the Defense Health Agency and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sealfon, Dr. Siedner, and Dr. Gupta have no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Gupta is a member of the editorial advisory board for this publication.
FROM THE LANCET RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Vaccinating homebound patients is an uphill battle
There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.
Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.
“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”
Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
Many roadblocks to vaccination
Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.
“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.
Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.
“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.
“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.
Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.
“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
Expenses are greater
The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.
Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.
For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.
There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.
William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.
“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”
Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.
“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”
Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.
While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.
Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.
“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
Overcoming the challenges
With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.
Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program.
“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.
People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.
“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.
If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”
Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.
“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.
Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.
The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.
Katie Lennon contributed to this report.
This article was updated 4/29/21.
There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.
Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.
“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”
Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
Many roadblocks to vaccination
Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.
“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.
Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.
“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.
“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.
Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.
“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
Expenses are greater
The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.
Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.
For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.
There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.
William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.
“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”
Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.
“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”
Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.
While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.
Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.
“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
Overcoming the challenges
With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.
Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program.
“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.
People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.
“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.
If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”
Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.
“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.
Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.
The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.
Katie Lennon contributed to this report.
This article was updated 4/29/21.
There are about 2 million to 4 million homebound patients in the United States, according to a webinar from The Trust for America’s Health, which was broadcast in March. But many of these individuals have not been vaccinated yet because of logistical challenges.
Some homebound COVID-19 immunization programs are administering Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to their patients, but many state, city, and local programs administered the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after it was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. The efficacy of the one-shot vaccine, as well as it being easier to store and ship than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, makes getting it to homebound patients less challenging.
“With Pfizer and Moderna, transportation is a challenge because the temperature demands and the fragility of [messenger] RNA–based vaccines,” Brent Feorene, executive director of the American Academy of Home Care Medicine, said in an interview. That’s why [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine held such promise – it’s less fragile, [can be stored in] higher temperatures, and was a one shot.”
Other hurdles to getting homebound patients vaccinated had already been in place prior to the 10-day-pause on using the J&J vaccine that occurred for federal agencies to consider possible serious side effects linked to it.
Many roadblocks to vaccination
Although many homebound patients can’t readily go out into the community and be exposed to the COVID-19 virus themselves, they are dependent on caregivers and family members who do go out into the community.
“Their friends, family, neighbors, home health aides, and other kinds of health care workers come into the home,” said Shawn Amer, clinical program director at Central Ohio Primary Care in Columbus.
Nurses from Ms. Amer’s practice vaccinated approximately ten homebound patients with the J&J vaccine through a pilot program in March. Then on April 24, nurses from Central Ohio Primary Care vaccinated just under 40 homebound patients and about a handful of their caregivers who were not able to get their vaccines elsewhere, according to Ms. Amer. This time they used the Pfizer vaccine and will be returning to these patients’ homes on May 15 to administer the second dose.
“Any time you are getting in the car and adding miles, it adds complexity,” Ms. Amer said.
“We called patients 24 to 36 hours before coming to their homes to make sure they were ready, but we learned that just because the healthcare power of attorney agrees to a patient getting vaccinated does not mean that patient will be willing to get the vaccine when the nurse shows up," she noted.
Ms. Amer elaborated that three patients with dementia refused the vaccine when nurses arrived at their home on April 24.
“We had to pivot and find other people,” Ms. Amer. Her practice ended up having to waste one shot.
Expenses are greater
The higher costs of getting homebound patients vaccinated is an additional hurdle to getting these vulnerable individuals protected by COVID-19 shots.
Vaccinating patients in their homes “doesn’t require a lot of technology, but it does require a lot of time” and the staffing expense becomes part of the challenge, Ms. Amer noted.
For each of the two days that Central Ohio Primary Care provides the Pfizer vaccine to homebound patients, the practice needs to pay seven nurses to administer the vaccine, Ms. Amer explained.
There have also been reports of organizations that administer the vaccines – which are free for patients because the federal government is paying for them – not being paid enough by Medicare to cover staff time and efforts to vaccinate patients in their homes, Kaiser Health News reported. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they pay $40 for the administration of a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine and, for COVID-19 vaccines requiring multiple doses, Medicare pays approximately $40 for each dose in the series. These rates were implemented after March 15. Before that date, the rates were even lower, with the Medicare reimbursement rates for initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines being $16.94 and final doses being $28.39.
William Dombi, president of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, told Kaiser Health News that the actual cost of these homebound visits are closer to $150 or $160.
“The reimbursement for the injection is pretty minimal,” Mr. Feorene said. “So unless you’re a larger organization and able to have staff to deploy some of your smaller practices, just couldn’t afford to do it.”
Many homebound patients have also been unable to get the lifesaving shots because of logistical roadblocks and many practices not being able to do home visits.
“I think that initially when the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] came out with vaccine guidance for medical providers, they offered no guidance for in-home medical providers and we had to go back and ask for that, which they did produce,” Mr. Feorene said. “And we’re grateful for that. But I think just this general understanding that there is a population of folks that are [limited to their home], that they do receive medical care and other care in the home, and that we have to remember that the medical providers who provide care in the home are also primary care providers.”
Furthermore, trying to navigate or find programs delivering vaccines to the homebound can be difficult depending on where a patient lives.
While some programs have been launched on the country or city level – the New York Fire Department launched a pilot program to bring the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to homebound seniors – other programs have been spearheaded by hospital networks like Northwell and Mount Sinai. However, many of these hospital networks only reach out to people who already have a relationship with the hospital.
Ms Amer said identifying homebound patients and reaching out to them can be tough and can contribute to the logistics and time involved in setting patients up for the vaccine.
“Reaching some of these patients is difficult,” Ms. Amer noted. “Sometimes the best way to reach them or get a hold of them is through their caregiver. And so do you have the right phone number? Do you have the right name?”
Overcoming the challenges
With the absence of a national plan targeting homebound patients, many local initiatives were launched to help these individuals get vaccinated. Local fire department paramedics have gone door to door to administer the COVID-19 vaccine in cities like Chicago, New York, and Miami. The suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine resulted in the suspension of in-home vaccinations for some people in New York City. However, the program resumed after the FDA and CDC lifted the pause on April 24.
Health systems like Mount Sinai vaccinated approximately 530 people through the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program, including patients and their caregivers, according to Peter Gliatto, MD, associate director of the Mount Sinai Visiting Doctors Program.
“In different cities, townships, and jurisdictions, different health departments and different provider groups are approaching [the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine] slightly differently,” Ms. Amer said. So a lot of the decisions surrounding the distribution of shots are local or dependent on local resourcing.
People who live in rural areas present a unique challenge, but Mr. Feorene said reaching out to local emergency medical services or the local health departments can provide some insight on what their town is doing to vaccinate homebound patients.
“I think understanding what a [public health department] is doing would be the very first place to start,” Mr. Feorene said in an interview.
If a patient is bedridden and is mobile enough to sit in a car, Mr. Feorene also recommends finding out if there are vaccine fairs “within a reasonable driving distance.”
Ms. Amer said continuing this mission of getting homebound patients vaccinated is necessary for public health.
“Even if it’s going to take longer to vaccinate these homebound patients, we still have to make an effort. So much of the country’s vaccine efforts have been focused on getting as many shots in as many arms as quickly as possible. And that is definitely super important,” she said.
Ms. Amer is working with her practice’s primary care physicians to try to identify all of those patients who are functionally debilitated or unable to leave their home to get vaccinated and that Central Ohio Primary Care will vaccinate more homebound patients, she added.
The experts interviewed in this article have no conflicts.
Katie Lennon contributed to this report.
This article was updated 4/29/21.
COVID plus MI confers poor prognosis; 1 in 3 die in hospital
COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.
“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.
The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.
“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.
The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.
The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate
The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls).
This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.
The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.
These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.
The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.
COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.
Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).
The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.
Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.
“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.
“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.
Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.
This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.
“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.
The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.
“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.
The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.
The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate
The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls).
This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.
The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.
These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.
The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.
COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.
Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).
The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.
Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.
“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.
“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.
Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.
This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a population with unique demographic and clinical features resulting in a high risk for mortality, according to initial findings from the North American Cardiovascular COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction (NACMI) Registry.
“This is the largest registry of COVID-positive patients presenting with STEMI [and] the results clearly illustrate the challenges and uniqueness of this patient population that deserves prompt and special attention,” study cochair Timothy Henry, MD, president-elect of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, said in a news release.
The NACMI registry is a collaborative effort between the SCAI, the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council, and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology.
“The rapid development of this ongoing, critically important prospective registry reflects the strong and unique collaboration of all three societies. It was gratifying to be part of this process and hopefully the results will improve the care of our patients and stimulate further research,” Dr. Henry said in the news release.
The registry has enrolled 1,185 patients presenting with STEMI at 64 sites across the United States and Canada. Participants include 230 COVID-positive STEMI patients; 495 STEMI patients suspected but ultimately confirmed not to have COVID-19; and 460 age-and sex-matched control STEMI patients treated prior to the pandemic who are part of the Midwest STEMI Consortium.
The initial findings from the registry were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Atypical symptoms may explain high death rate
The primary outcome – a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat unplanned revascularization – occurred in 36% of COVID-positive patients, compared with 13% of COVID-negative patients and 5% of control patients (P < .001 relative to controls).
This difference was driven largely by a “very high” in-hospital death rate in COVID-positive patients, lead author Santiago Garcia, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.
The in-hospital death rate was 33% in COVID-positive patients, compared with 11% in COVID-negative patients and 4% in controls. Stroke also occurred more often in COVID-positive patients at 3% versus 2% in COVID-negative and 0% in controls.
These initial findings suggest that the combination of STEMI and COVID-19 infection “confers a poor prognosis, with one in three patients succumbing to the disease, even among patients selected for invasive angiography (28% mortality),” the investigators wrote.
The data also show that STEMI in COVID-positive patients disproportionately affects ethnic minorities (23% Hispanic and 24% Black) with diabetes, which was present in 46% of COVID-positive patients.
COVID-positive patients with STEMI are more likely to present with atypical symptoms such as dyspnea (54%), pulmonary infiltrates on chest x-ray (46%), and high-risk conditions such as cardiogenic shock (18%), “which may explain the high fatality rate,” Dr. Garcia said.
Despite these high-risk features, COVID-positive patients are less apt to undergo invasive angiography when compared with COVID-negative and control STEMI patients (78% vs. 96% vs. 100%).
The majority of patients (71%) who did under angiography received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with very small treatment delays (at 15 minutes) during the pandemic.
Another notable finding is that “many patients (23%) have ‘no culprit’ vessel and may represent different etiologies of ST-segment elevation including microemboli, myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Garcia said in an interview.
“In line with current guidelines, patients with suspected STEMI should be managed with PPCI, without delay while the safety of health care providers is ensured,” Ran Kornowski, MD, and Katia Orvin, MD, both with Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and Tel Aviv University, wrote in a linked editorial.
“In this case, PPCI should be performed routinely, even if the patient is presumed to have COVID-19, because PPCI should not be postponed. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not delay urgent decision management concerning reperfusion strategy,” they advised.
Looking ahead, Garcia said plans for the registry include determining predictors of in-hospital mortality and studying demographic and treatment trends as the pandemic continues with more virulent strains of the virus.
Various subgroup analyses are also planned as well as an independent angiographic and electrocardiographic core lab analysis. A comparative analysis of data from the US and Canada is also planned.
This work was supported by an ACC Accreditation Grant, Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, and grants from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular to SCAI. Dr. Garcia has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, BSCI, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medtronic and BSCI; and has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kornowski and Dr. Orvin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More signs COVID shots are safe for pregnant women
As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.
None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.
That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.
Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.
Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.
Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.
The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
Deciding to get vaccinated
Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.
Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”
The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.
Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.
“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.
She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.
“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.
Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.
Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.
“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
New study results
Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.
The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.
The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.
The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.
The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.
“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.
But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.
A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.
Impact of the studies
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.
“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.
She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.
“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.
Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.
Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.
None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.
That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.
Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.
Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.
Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.
The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
Deciding to get vaccinated
Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.
Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”
The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.
Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.
“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.
She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.
“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.
Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.
Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.
“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
New study results
Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.
The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.
The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.
The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.
The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.
“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.
But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.
A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.
Impact of the studies
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.
“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.
She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.
“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.
Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.
Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.
None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.
That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.
Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.
Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.
Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.
The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
Deciding to get vaccinated
Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.
Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”
The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.
Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.
“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.
She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.
“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.
Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.
Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.
“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
New study results
Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.
The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.
The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.
The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.
The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.
“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.
But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.
A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.
Impact of the studies
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.
“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.
She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.
“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.
Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.
Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The neurology of long-haul COVID-19
Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.
Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19
Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.
To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.
Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
A panoply of different syndromes
In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.
Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.
One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
Looking for biologic markers
An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.
A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.
Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
The research task ahead
The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.
Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”
Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.
Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.
Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19
Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.
To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.
Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
A panoply of different syndromes
In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.
Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.
One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
Looking for biologic markers
An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.
A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.
Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
The research task ahead
The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.
Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”
Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.
Long-haul neurologic symptoms of COVID-19 seem to be distinct from neurologic conditions found in acute disease. Much work remains to be done to understand the biological mechanisms behind these problems, but inflammation and autoimmune responses may play a role in some cases.
Those were some of the takeaways from a talk by Serena Spudich, MD, who presented her research at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Spudich is the division chief of neurologic infections and global neurology and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Examining the nervous system’s involvement in COVID-19
Even early on in the pandemic, it became clear that there were lingering complaints of neuromuscular problems, cognitive dysfunction, and mood and psychiatric issues. Breathing and heart rate problems also can arise. “There seems to be a preponderance of syndromes that reflect involvement of the nervous system,” said Dr. Spudich.
To try to understand the etiology of these persistent problems, Dr. Spudich said it’s important to examine the nervous system’s involvement in acute COVID-19. She has been involved in these efforts since early in the pandemic, when she ran an inpatient consult service at Yale dedicated to neurologic effects of acute COVID-19. She witnessed complications including stroke, encephalopathy, and seizures, among others.
Stroke during acute COVID-19 seemed to be associated with inflammation and endothelial activation or endotheliopathy. SARS-CoV-2 has been undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with acute COVID-19 and neurologic symptoms, but inflammatory cytokines can be present along with increased frequency of B cells. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have also been found in CSF, some of which were auto reactive to brain tissue. The immune response was altered, compared with healthy controls, and in the CNS, compared with in the blood, “raising the question of whether inflammation and autoimmunity may be underlying causes of these syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
She also pointed to an MRI study of autopsied brain tissue of patients with COVID-19 and neurologic complications, which showed indications of both hemorrhagic and ischemic microvascular injury. “It’s just a reminder that, during acute COVID-19, there may be inflammation in the brain, there may be autoimmune reactions, and there may be vascular changes that underlie some of the neurologic syndromes that are seen,” said Dr. Spudich.
A panoply of different syndromes
In October, Yale set up a post-COVID neurologic clinic that brought together pulmonary, cardiology, and psychiatric specialists, many of whom saw the same patients, about 60% of whom had cognitive impairment, more than 40% had neuromuscular problems, and over 30% headache. “There’s not a single entity of a post-COVID neurologic syndrome. There’s a panoply of different syndromes that may have similar or distinct etiologies,” said Dr. Spudich.
Most patients were in their 30s, 40s, or 50s. That doesn’t necessarily mean this is the most common age range for these issues, though. There could be some bias if these individuals are seeking specialty care because they expected to recover from COVID-19 quickly. But it could be that there is something biologically unique among this age group that predisposes them to complications. Regardless, two out of three patients were never hospitalized, “suggesting that even mild COVID-19 can lead to some long-term sequelae,” said Dr. Spudich.
One potential explanation for long-term neurologic syndromes is that they are an extension of the inflammation, autoimmunity, and immune perturbation occurring during acute disease. One study looked at 18 cancer patients who had neurologic complications with COVID-19. Two months after onset, they had elevated markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal injury in the cerebral spinal fluid compared to cancer patients with no history of COVID-19.
Looking for biologic markers
An Italian study looked at patients who were evaluated during acute hospitalization and again 3 months later, and found that some markers of inflation in the blood were associated with later cognitive impairment. The patients were more severely ill, so it’s not clear what the findings mean for patients who present with neurologic symptoms after milder illness.
A PET scan study of 35 patients with persistent neurologic symptoms found patterns of reduced fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in some regions of the brain that are believed to be associated with some symptoms. Lower values were associated with greater severity for symptoms like memory dysfunction, and anosmia. “Why there might be hypometabolism in these regions I think needs to be assessed and used as a biomarker to associate hypometabolism with other kinds of processes in blood and spinal fluid,” said Dr. Spudich.
Along with colleagues at Yale, Dr. Spudich is conducting the MIND study, which is using PET and MRI imaging along with blood and CSF biomarkers to track the progress of patients after COVID-19. There are few results to discuss since only 20 patients have been recruited so far, except that brain imaging and blood values are generally normal despite neurologic complaints. Most were not hospitalized for COVID-19. Dr. Spudich highlighted one man in his 30s who developed new-onset psychosis, despite no previous history. Although clinical tests were all negative, a novel autoantibody detection method revealed a previously unknown autoreactive antibody in his spinal fluid. “This may suggest that there is autoantibody production in some individuals with post–COVID-19 psychosis, and potentially other syndromes,” said Dr. Spudich.
The research task ahead
The case illustrates the task ahead for neurology. “There’s a real research mandate to understand the biological substrates of these diverse disorders, not only to address the emergent public health concern and reduce the stigma in our patients, but to develop targeted therapeutic interventions,” said Dr. Spudich.
Anna Cervantes-Arslanian, MD, an associate professor of neurology at Boston University who also treats and studies patients with post-COVID neurologic symptoms, agreed with that assessment. “It’s not like every patient that has muscle aches and fatigue also has brain fog. It’s really hard to parse them out into specific phenotypes that are pretty classic. Some people will have all of those things, some will have very few of them,” said Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian. “We need to be able to identify them sand see if there is clustering of symptoms so we can better look into what the biological underpinnings are. That’s the first step to thinking about a therapeutic target.”
Dr. Spudich and Dr. Cervantes-Arslanian had no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAN 2021
PTSD linked to ischemic heart disease
A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).
The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.
“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”
The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”
The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
Increasing number of VHA users
“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.
The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.
IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.
For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.
Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.
Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.
IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.
The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.
Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).
In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)
The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).
Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.
The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.
In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.
A call to action
In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.
As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”
The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”
Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”
Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.
“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.
She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.
This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).
The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.
“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”
The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”
The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
Increasing number of VHA users
“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.
The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.
IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.
For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.
Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.
Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.
IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.
The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.
Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).
In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)
The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).
Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.
The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.
In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.
A call to action
In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.
As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”
The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”
Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”
Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.
“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.
She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.
This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).
The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.
“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”
The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”
The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
Increasing number of VHA users
“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.
The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.
IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.
For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.
Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.
Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.
IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.
The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.
Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).
In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)
The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).
Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.
The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.
In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.
A call to action
In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.
As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”
The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”
Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”
Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.
“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.
She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.
This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tislelizumab bests docetaxel in NSCLC
The results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT039).
Tislelizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize Fc-gamma receptor binding on macrophages, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti–PD-1 resistance, according to investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, of Shanghai (China) Pulmonary Hospital.
Tislelizumab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and first-line treatment of advanced squamous NSCLC in China.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have been shown to improve OS by 2-4 months versus docetaxel, Dr. Zhou said. A phase 1/2 study of second-line tislelizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC.
The phase 3 RATIONALE 303 study (NCT3358875) was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab, compared with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease had progressed during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy.
Study details
RATIONALE 303 enrolled 805 patients who had received up to two prior lines of systemic therapy and had no known EGFR mutations or ALK fusions.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, about 77% were male, about 80% were Asian, and about 70% were current or former smokers. Roughly 46% of patients had squamous histology, and about 43% had PD-L1 expression of 25% or greater.
Patients were stratified according to histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), lines of prior therapy (second vs. third), and PD-L1 status (<25% vs. ≥25%).
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive IV tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 535) or IV docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 270) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
The dual primary endpoints were OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1 expression of 25% or higher.
Survival and safety
In the ITT population, the 1-year OS rate was 61.9% in the tislelizumab arm and 49.8% in the docetaxel arm. At 2 years, the OS rates were 39.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
The median OS was 17.2 months in the tislelizumab arm and 11.9 months in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < .0001).
In the PD-L1–high subgroup, the median OS was 19.1 months with tislelizumab and 11.9 months with docetaxel (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.71; P < .0001). The 1-year OS rates in this group were 67.5% and 49.1%, respectively, and the 2-year OS rates were 44.7% and 24.5%, respectively.
The OS benefit with tislelizumab was observed across nearly all subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted.
In the ITT population, benefits were seen with tislelizumab over docetaxel for progression-free survival (4.1 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .0001), objective response rate (21.9% vs. 7.1%, P < .0001), and median duration of response (13.5 months vs. 6.2 months, P < .0001).
The rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 73.0% in the tislelizumab arm and 93.8% in the docetaxel arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were 14.4% and 66.3%, respectively. Rates of TRAEs leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment were 6.0% and 9.7%, respectively, and rates of TRAEs leading to death were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia in the tislelizumab arm (28.5%) and alopecia in the docetaxel arm (47.3%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia in the docetaxel arm (27.9% vs. 0.6% with tislelizumab).
‘Very important trial’
“RATIONALE 303 demonstrated that, as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, tislelizumab was tolerable and prolonged overall survival by 5-7 months. It also improved progression-free survival and objective response rate versus docetaxel, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Zhou concluded.
Session moderator Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago called RATIONALE 303 a “very important trial.”
Citing the range of immunotherapies available for NSCLC, Dr. Garassino said, “We have a very crowded space in the treatment of NSCLC. ... It is difficult to do a direct comparison [of immunotherapy trials] because we know that populations can be different and other factors can play a role. In the near future, we have to understand if they are all the same and interchangeable or if they are different.”
RATIONALE 303 was funded by BeiGene. Dr. Zhou disclosed relationships with Lily China, Sanofi, Roche, and several other companies, not including BeiGene. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies, not including BeiGene.
The results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT039).
Tislelizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize Fc-gamma receptor binding on macrophages, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti–PD-1 resistance, according to investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, of Shanghai (China) Pulmonary Hospital.
Tislelizumab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and first-line treatment of advanced squamous NSCLC in China.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have been shown to improve OS by 2-4 months versus docetaxel, Dr. Zhou said. A phase 1/2 study of second-line tislelizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC.
The phase 3 RATIONALE 303 study (NCT3358875) was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab, compared with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease had progressed during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy.
Study details
RATIONALE 303 enrolled 805 patients who had received up to two prior lines of systemic therapy and had no known EGFR mutations or ALK fusions.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, about 77% were male, about 80% were Asian, and about 70% were current or former smokers. Roughly 46% of patients had squamous histology, and about 43% had PD-L1 expression of 25% or greater.
Patients were stratified according to histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), lines of prior therapy (second vs. third), and PD-L1 status (<25% vs. ≥25%).
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive IV tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 535) or IV docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 270) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
The dual primary endpoints were OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1 expression of 25% or higher.
Survival and safety
In the ITT population, the 1-year OS rate was 61.9% in the tislelizumab arm and 49.8% in the docetaxel arm. At 2 years, the OS rates were 39.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
The median OS was 17.2 months in the tislelizumab arm and 11.9 months in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < .0001).
In the PD-L1–high subgroup, the median OS was 19.1 months with tislelizumab and 11.9 months with docetaxel (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.71; P < .0001). The 1-year OS rates in this group were 67.5% and 49.1%, respectively, and the 2-year OS rates were 44.7% and 24.5%, respectively.
The OS benefit with tislelizumab was observed across nearly all subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted.
In the ITT population, benefits were seen with tislelizumab over docetaxel for progression-free survival (4.1 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .0001), objective response rate (21.9% vs. 7.1%, P < .0001), and median duration of response (13.5 months vs. 6.2 months, P < .0001).
The rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 73.0% in the tislelizumab arm and 93.8% in the docetaxel arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were 14.4% and 66.3%, respectively. Rates of TRAEs leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment were 6.0% and 9.7%, respectively, and rates of TRAEs leading to death were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia in the tislelizumab arm (28.5%) and alopecia in the docetaxel arm (47.3%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia in the docetaxel arm (27.9% vs. 0.6% with tislelizumab).
‘Very important trial’
“RATIONALE 303 demonstrated that, as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, tislelizumab was tolerable and prolonged overall survival by 5-7 months. It also improved progression-free survival and objective response rate versus docetaxel, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Zhou concluded.
Session moderator Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago called RATIONALE 303 a “very important trial.”
Citing the range of immunotherapies available for NSCLC, Dr. Garassino said, “We have a very crowded space in the treatment of NSCLC. ... It is difficult to do a direct comparison [of immunotherapy trials] because we know that populations can be different and other factors can play a role. In the near future, we have to understand if they are all the same and interchangeable or if they are different.”
RATIONALE 303 was funded by BeiGene. Dr. Zhou disclosed relationships with Lily China, Sanofi, Roche, and several other companies, not including BeiGene. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies, not including BeiGene.
The results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract CT039).
Tislelizumab is an anti–PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize Fc-gamma receptor binding on macrophages, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential anti–PD-1 resistance, according to investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, of Shanghai (China) Pulmonary Hospital.
Tislelizumab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and first-line treatment of advanced squamous NSCLC in China.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease has progressed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy, anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have been shown to improve OS by 2-4 months versus docetaxel, Dr. Zhou said. A phase 1/2 study of second-line tislelizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in multiple advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC.
The phase 3 RATIONALE 303 study (NCT3358875) was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab, compared with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC whose disease had progressed during or after platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy.
Study details
RATIONALE 303 enrolled 805 patients who had received up to two prior lines of systemic therapy and had no known EGFR mutations or ALK fusions.
The patients’ median age was 61 years, about 77% were male, about 80% were Asian, and about 70% were current or former smokers. Roughly 46% of patients had squamous histology, and about 43% had PD-L1 expression of 25% or greater.
Patients were stratified according to histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous), lines of prior therapy (second vs. third), and PD-L1 status (<25% vs. ≥25%).
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive IV tislelizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks (n = 535) or IV docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 270) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression.
The dual primary endpoints were OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with PD-L1 expression of 25% or higher.
Survival and safety
In the ITT population, the 1-year OS rate was 61.9% in the tislelizumab arm and 49.8% in the docetaxel arm. At 2 years, the OS rates were 39.4% and 25.0%, respectively.
The median OS was 17.2 months in the tislelizumab arm and 11.9 months in the docetaxel arm (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < .0001).
In the PD-L1–high subgroup, the median OS was 19.1 months with tislelizumab and 11.9 months with docetaxel (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.71; P < .0001). The 1-year OS rates in this group were 67.5% and 49.1%, respectively, and the 2-year OS rates were 44.7% and 24.5%, respectively.
The OS benefit with tislelizumab was observed across nearly all subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted.
In the ITT population, benefits were seen with tislelizumab over docetaxel for progression-free survival (4.1 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .0001), objective response rate (21.9% vs. 7.1%, P < .0001), and median duration of response (13.5 months vs. 6.2 months, P < .0001).
The rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 73.0% in the tislelizumab arm and 93.8% in the docetaxel arm. Rates of grade 3 or higher TRAEs were 14.4% and 66.3%, respectively. Rates of TRAEs leading to permanent discontinuation of treatment were 6.0% and 9.7%, respectively, and rates of TRAEs leading to death were 1.5% and 1.6%, respectively.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anemia in the tislelizumab arm (28.5%) and alopecia in the docetaxel arm (47.3%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia in the docetaxel arm (27.9% vs. 0.6% with tislelizumab).
‘Very important trial’
“RATIONALE 303 demonstrated that, as second- or third-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, tislelizumab was tolerable and prolonged overall survival by 5-7 months. It also improved progression-free survival and objective response rate versus docetaxel, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression,” Dr. Zhou concluded.
Session moderator Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, of the University of Chicago called RATIONALE 303 a “very important trial.”
Citing the range of immunotherapies available for NSCLC, Dr. Garassino said, “We have a very crowded space in the treatment of NSCLC. ... It is difficult to do a direct comparison [of immunotherapy trials] because we know that populations can be different and other factors can play a role. In the near future, we have to understand if they are all the same and interchangeable or if they are different.”
RATIONALE 303 was funded by BeiGene. Dr. Zhou disclosed relationships with Lily China, Sanofi, Roche, and several other companies, not including BeiGene. Dr. Garassino disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several other companies, not including BeiGene.
FROM AACR 2021
Ten reasons airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears airtight
The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.
Not that it’s without controversy.
The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.
“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).
“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.
“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
Top 10 reasons
They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:
- The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
- Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
- Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
- Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
- Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
- Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
- Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
- It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
- No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
- Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.
“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.
The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
Response to a review
The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”
However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”
Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.
“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”
As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”
The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.
Not that it’s without controversy.
The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.
“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).
“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.
“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
Top 10 reasons
They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:
- The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
- Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
- Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
- Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
- Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
- Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
- Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
- It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
- No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
- Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.
“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.
The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
Response to a review
The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”
However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”
Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.
“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”
As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”
The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.
Not that it’s without controversy.
The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.
“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).
“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.
“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
Top 10 reasons
They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:
- The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
- Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
- Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
- Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
- Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
- Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
- Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
- It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
- No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
- Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.
“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.
“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.
The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
Response to a review
The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”
However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”
Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.
“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”
As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”
The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children’s share of COVID-19 burden has never been higher
For the first time since the pandemic began, children’s share of weekly COVID-19 cases topped 20% in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That represented 20.6% of all new cases for the week, eclipsing the previous high of 19.1% recorded just 3 weeks ago, based on data collected by the AAP and CHA from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Cumulative cases of COVID-19 in children exceed 3.6 million in those jurisdictions, which is 13.6% of the total reported among all ages, and the overall rate of coronavirus infection is 4,824 cases per 100,000 children in the population, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Among the 53 reporting jurisdictions, North Dakota has the highest cumulative rate, 9,167 per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (8,580), South Carolina (7,948), South Dakota (7,938), and Connecticut (7,707). Children’s share of cumulative cases is highest in Vermont, at 21.9%, with Alaska next at 20.0% and Wyoming at 19.2%, the AAP and CHA said.
Since the beginning of April, the largest local increases in cases reported came in Michigan (21.6%), Vermont (15.9%), and Maine (15.6%). Nationally, the increase over those same 2 weeks is just under 5%, the two organizations noted.
There were 5 deaths among children during the week of April 9-15, bringing the total to 297, but the recent increases in cases have not affected the long-term trends for serious illness. The death rate for children with COVID-19 has been 0.01% since early November – 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam are reporting such data – and the hospitalization rate has been 0.8% since mid-January in 24 states and New York City, the AAP/CHA data show.
For the first time since the pandemic began, children’s share of weekly COVID-19 cases topped 20% in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That represented 20.6% of all new cases for the week, eclipsing the previous high of 19.1% recorded just 3 weeks ago, based on data collected by the AAP and CHA from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Cumulative cases of COVID-19 in children exceed 3.6 million in those jurisdictions, which is 13.6% of the total reported among all ages, and the overall rate of coronavirus infection is 4,824 cases per 100,000 children in the population, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Among the 53 reporting jurisdictions, North Dakota has the highest cumulative rate, 9,167 per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (8,580), South Carolina (7,948), South Dakota (7,938), and Connecticut (7,707). Children’s share of cumulative cases is highest in Vermont, at 21.9%, with Alaska next at 20.0% and Wyoming at 19.2%, the AAP and CHA said.
Since the beginning of April, the largest local increases in cases reported came in Michigan (21.6%), Vermont (15.9%), and Maine (15.6%). Nationally, the increase over those same 2 weeks is just under 5%, the two organizations noted.
There were 5 deaths among children during the week of April 9-15, bringing the total to 297, but the recent increases in cases have not affected the long-term trends for serious illness. The death rate for children with COVID-19 has been 0.01% since early November – 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam are reporting such data – and the hospitalization rate has been 0.8% since mid-January in 24 states and New York City, the AAP/CHA data show.
For the first time since the pandemic began, children’s share of weekly COVID-19 cases topped 20% in the United States, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That represented 20.6% of all new cases for the week, eclipsing the previous high of 19.1% recorded just 3 weeks ago, based on data collected by the AAP and CHA from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
Cumulative cases of COVID-19 in children exceed 3.6 million in those jurisdictions, which is 13.6% of the total reported among all ages, and the overall rate of coronavirus infection is 4,824 cases per 100,000 children in the population, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Among the 53 reporting jurisdictions, North Dakota has the highest cumulative rate, 9,167 per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (8,580), South Carolina (7,948), South Dakota (7,938), and Connecticut (7,707). Children’s share of cumulative cases is highest in Vermont, at 21.9%, with Alaska next at 20.0% and Wyoming at 19.2%, the AAP and CHA said.
Since the beginning of April, the largest local increases in cases reported came in Michigan (21.6%), Vermont (15.9%), and Maine (15.6%). Nationally, the increase over those same 2 weeks is just under 5%, the two organizations noted.
There were 5 deaths among children during the week of April 9-15, bringing the total to 297, but the recent increases in cases have not affected the long-term trends for serious illness. The death rate for children with COVID-19 has been 0.01% since early November – 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam are reporting such data – and the hospitalization rate has been 0.8% since mid-January in 24 states and New York City, the AAP/CHA data show.