CHEST Physician

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

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

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Patients with heart failure get pneumonia at a rate almost three times greater than expected and, once they do get pneumonia, have about a fourfold greater risk of death, investigators for a retrospective analysis of 13,000 patients from two landmark randomized HF trials have found.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The investigators also found that HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at the highest risk of developing pneumonia. The findings underscore the importance of patients with HF getting a pneumonia vaccination, they found.

The analysis showed that 6.3% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial and 10.6% of those in the PARAGON-HF trial developed pneumonia, reported the study authors, led by John J.V. McMurray, MD, of the British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Glasgow in Scotland (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1961-73).

“The main reason for doing this study was the fact that many heart failure patients are not vaccinated, as they should be, against pneumonia – both pneumococcus and influenza vaccination,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. “We wanted to document the frequency and consequences of pneumonia in patients with heart failure to help highlight this deficiency in care.”

Dr. McMurray said he believes this is the first study to document the incidence of pneumonia and pneumonia-related outcomes according to the two major ejection fraction phenotypes.
 

PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

The post hoc analysis consisted of 8,399 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF (Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Sep;15[9]:1062-73) and 4,796 patients with HFpEF in PARAGON-HF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). The analysis focused on the 528 and 510 patients in each study, respectively, who developed pneumonia. Those rates translated to an incidence rate of 29 per 1,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 27-31) in PARADIGM-HF and 39 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 36-42) in PARAGON-HF.

After pneumonia, the risk of death in patients increased substantially. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death from any cause after pneumonia was 4.34 (95% CI, 3.73-5.05). In PARAGON-HF, it was 3.76 (95% CI, 3.09-4.58). HF patients who contracted pneumonia also tended to have HF longer than their counterparts who didn’t develop pneumonia, but the frequency of previous hospitalization for HF didn’t vary between the pneumonia and no-pneumonia groups.

Patients who developed pneumonia tended to be older (average age of 66.9 years vs. 64.6 years, P < .001) and male (83.9% vs. 77.8%, P < .001). The mean age of patients in PARADIGM-HF was almost a decade younger than those in PARAGON-HF, 64 vs. 73 years.

Pneumonia patients also had worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores (76 vs. 80 on average), but no difference in New York Heart Association functional class. “In general, patients who developed pneumonia had more symptoms and signs and HF than those who did not develop pneumonia,” Dr. McMurray and colleagues wrote.

Pneumonia patients also had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% vs. 12%), diabetes (43% vs. 34%), and atrial fibrillation (46% vs. 36%).

Another reason for conducting the study, Dr. McMurray said, “was the prior findings in patients with coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction that the risk associated with an episode of pneumonia [e.g., in subsequent vascular events and deaths] persisted long after the acute event. We wanted to see if this was also the case for heart failure, and indeed it was.”

For example, the adjusted HR for cardiovascular death or hospitalization in the first month following an episode of pneumonia was 9.48 (range of 6.85-13.12, P < .001), leveling off to 1.59 after 3 months or more.
 

Vaccination crucial in HF patients

Dr. McMurray noted that this study emphasizes the importance of pneumonia vaccination for patients with HF. “Given that we have so few treatments to offer patients with HFpEF, this makes the potential value of vaccination in these patients all the greater,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. McMurray said, is a “good reminder of the dangers of a respiratory infection and the importance of vaccination in these patients. COVID-19 has interesting parallels in being a systemic disease and one with postacute, persisting effects.”

The persistent risk for adverse cardiovascular events 3 months and later after pneumonia is a novel finding of the study, wrote Donna Mancini, MD, and Gregory Gibson, MD, in an invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:1974-6). Both are with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York. The post hoc study also “serves as an important reminder” of pneumonia risk in patients with HF, especially during the pandemic, they wrote.

“Although vaccination alone appears unlikely to be a panacea, it is a readily accessible tool for mitigating disease severity and improving outcomes,” Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson wrote. “After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Novartis provided funding for the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, and Dr. McMurray and coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Novartis. Dr. Mancini and Dr. Gibson have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Research suggests certain gut bacteria can reduce the efficacy of radiotherapy against cancers, but targeting those bacteria with vancomycin can reverse this effect.

Andrea Facciabene, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a preclinical study in which vancomycin enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy against melanoma and lung cancer. Now, researchers are conducting a clinical trial to determine if vancomycin can have the same effect in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Dr. Facciabene reviewed this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine.

According to Dr. Facciabene, “gut microbiota” includes the more than 1,000 different strains of bacteria living in human intestines. He indicated that the average human has 10 times more bacteria than cells in the body and 150 times more genes in the gut microbiome than in the human genome.

In healthy individuals, the gut microbiota play a key role in intestinal function and digestive processes, modulation of hormones and vitamin secretion, energy extraction from food, and development and maintenance of a balanced immune system.

“Dysbiosis” is the term applied to a change in the composition, diversity, or metabolites of the microbiome from a healthy pattern to one associated with disease. Antibiotic therapy is a classic cause of dysbiosis, and dysbiosis has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases.

The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome could influence systemic immunity is not known but is relevant to cancer therapy response. Augmenting the frequency and durability of response to immune-targeted treatments – potentially by manipulating the influence of gut microbiota on the immune system – could be highly impactful.
 

Gut microbiota and radiation-induced cell death

Immunogenic cell death – a process by which tumors die and release their intracellular molecular contents – is one of the mechanisms by which radiotherapy kills cancer cells.

Tumor cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death stimulate antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, that engulf tumor antigens and cross-present them to CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes. This process culminates in the generation of a specific immune response capable of killing the malignant cells in the irradiated area, but it also impacts distant nonirradiated tumors – an abscopal effect.

Dr. Facciabene and colleagues hypothesized that alterations of the gut microbiota could have an impact on the effect of radiotherapy. To investigate this, they studied mouse models of melanoma.

The team allowed B16-OVA tumors to grow for 9-12 days, then delivered a single dose of radiotherapy (21 Gy) to one – but not all – tumors. Simultaneously with the delivery of radiotherapy, the investigators started some animals on oral vancomycin. The team chose vancomycin because its effects are localized and impact the gut microbiota directly, without any known systemic effects.

Results showed that vancomycin significantly augmented the impact of radiotherapy in the irradiated area and was associated with regression of remote tumors.

The effects of the combination treatment on tumor volume were significantly greater than the effects of either treatment alone. Since manipulation of the gut microbiome potentiated radiotherapy effects both locally and distantly, the investigators concluded that immunogenic cell death may be involved in both the local and abscopal effects of radiotherapy.

When the experiment was repeated with a lung tumor model, similar findings were observed.
 

Involvement of cytotoxic T cells and interferon-gamma

Dr. Facciabene and colleagues found that the irradiated and unirradiated B16 OVA melanoma tumors treated with the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination were infiltrated by CD3+ and CD8+ T cells.

The investigators selectively depleted CD8+ T cells by pretreating the mice with an anti-CD8 monoclonal antibody. Depletion of CD8+ cells prior to administering radiotherapy plus vancomycin abrogated the antitumor effects of the combination treatment, demonstrating that the CD8+ T cells were required.

To characterize the antigen specificity of the tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues used OVA MHC class 1 tetramer. Tumors from mice treated with vancomycin alone, radiotherapy alone, or the combination were dissected. Individual dendritic cells were assayed for OVA tetramer by flow cytometry.

The investigators found that tumors from mice treated with radiotherapy plus vancomycin had a significantly higher number of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells, in comparison with untreated tumors or tumors treated with either vancomycin alone or radiotherapy alone. Since antibody that impaired recognition of MHC class I peptides by T cells ablated the effect, it was clear that antigen recognition was vital.

Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) is known to play a critical role in both differentiation and effector functions of CD8+ cytolytic T cells in the antitumor immune response. To determine whether IFN-gamma is involved in the antitumor effects of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination, the investigators measured intratumoral expression of IFN-gamma in the tumors 5 days after radiotherapy.

IFN-gamma messenger RNA expression levels were significantly elevated in the combination treatment group when compared with either treatment alone. In B16-OVA melanoma–challenged knockout mice, the enhancement of the radiotherapy effects by vancomycin was ablated.

The investigators concluded that vancomycin remodels the tumor microenvironment and increases the functionality of tumor-infiltrating, tumor-specific, CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, IFN-gamma is required to augment the radiotherapy-induced immune effect against the tumor.
 

Potential biochemical mediators of immune effects

The gut microbiota aid host digestion and generate a large repertoire of metabolites after defermentation of fiber. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) constitute the major products of bacterial fermentation.

Acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid represent 95% of total SCFAs present in the intestine. SCFAs are known to directly modulate cytokine production and dendritic cell function.

In their study, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues focused on butyric acid. Using mass spectroscopy, they demonstrated that vancomycin treatment reduces butyrate concentrations in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes by eradicating the major families of SCFA-producing Clostridia species.

To test whether supplementing butyrate could influence the synergy of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination in vivo, the investigators added sodium butyrate to the mice’s drinking water when starting vancomycin treatment. The team then challenged the mice with B16-OVA tumors and treated them with radiotherapy.

In agreement with the group’s prior findings, vancomycin enhanced the tumor-inhibitory effects of radiotherapy, but dietary butyrate inhibited the benefit. The investigators found a significant decrease in the population of B16-OVA–presenting dendritic cells in the lymph nodes of mice receiving the supplemental butyrate.

Dr. Facciabene said these findings were supported by a recent publication. The authors observed that butyrate inhibited type I IFN expression in dendritic cells and radiotherapy-induced, tumor-specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy.
 

Wide-ranging implications

Overall, Dr. Facciabene’s research has shown that:

• Vancomycin significantly enhances the tumor inhibitory effect of targeted radiation, including abscopal effects.
• The synergistic effects are dependent upon IFN-gamma and CD8+ cells.
• Depletion of some gut microbiome species increases antigen presentation by dendritic cells. This is mediated by SCFAs produced by certain bacterial families.
• There are promising new strategies to improve responses to radiotherapy, including targeting gut microbiota.

A clinical trial (NCT03546829) of vancomycin plus stereotactic body radiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer has been launched to investigate these findings further. Early data analysis has shown a significant impact of vancomycin on several species of gut microbiota, according to Dr. Facciabene.

Revolutionary results from immune-targeted therapy in the recent past have highlighted the important role the immune system can play in fighting cancer. Still, up to one-third of cancer patients fail to respond to overtly immune-targeted therapy.

The ability to inhibit cancer cells from evading immune surveillance by using new adjuvants – including those acting on non-traditional targets like gut microbiota – could herald the next major advances in cancer therapy. During his presentation, Dr. Facciabene gave participants an enticing hint of what could be coming for cancer patients in the years ahead.

Dr. Facciabene reported having no relevant disclosures.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research suggests certain gut bacteria can reduce the efficacy of radiotherapy against cancers, but targeting those bacteria with vancomycin can reverse this effect.

Andrea Facciabene, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a preclinical study in which vancomycin enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy against melanoma and lung cancer. Now, researchers are conducting a clinical trial to determine if vancomycin can have the same effect in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Dr. Facciabene reviewed this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine.

According to Dr. Facciabene, “gut microbiota” includes the more than 1,000 different strains of bacteria living in human intestines. He indicated that the average human has 10 times more bacteria than cells in the body and 150 times more genes in the gut microbiome than in the human genome.

In healthy individuals, the gut microbiota play a key role in intestinal function and digestive processes, modulation of hormones and vitamin secretion, energy extraction from food, and development and maintenance of a balanced immune system.

“Dysbiosis” is the term applied to a change in the composition, diversity, or metabolites of the microbiome from a healthy pattern to one associated with disease. Antibiotic therapy is a classic cause of dysbiosis, and dysbiosis has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases.

The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome could influence systemic immunity is not known but is relevant to cancer therapy response. Augmenting the frequency and durability of response to immune-targeted treatments – potentially by manipulating the influence of gut microbiota on the immune system – could be highly impactful.
 

Gut microbiota and radiation-induced cell death

Immunogenic cell death – a process by which tumors die and release their intracellular molecular contents – is one of the mechanisms by which radiotherapy kills cancer cells.

Tumor cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death stimulate antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, that engulf tumor antigens and cross-present them to CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes. This process culminates in the generation of a specific immune response capable of killing the malignant cells in the irradiated area, but it also impacts distant nonirradiated tumors – an abscopal effect.

Dr. Facciabene and colleagues hypothesized that alterations of the gut microbiota could have an impact on the effect of radiotherapy. To investigate this, they studied mouse models of melanoma.

The team allowed B16-OVA tumors to grow for 9-12 days, then delivered a single dose of radiotherapy (21 Gy) to one – but not all – tumors. Simultaneously with the delivery of radiotherapy, the investigators started some animals on oral vancomycin. The team chose vancomycin because its effects are localized and impact the gut microbiota directly, without any known systemic effects.

Results showed that vancomycin significantly augmented the impact of radiotherapy in the irradiated area and was associated with regression of remote tumors.

The effects of the combination treatment on tumor volume were significantly greater than the effects of either treatment alone. Since manipulation of the gut microbiome potentiated radiotherapy effects both locally and distantly, the investigators concluded that immunogenic cell death may be involved in both the local and abscopal effects of radiotherapy.

When the experiment was repeated with a lung tumor model, similar findings were observed.
 

Involvement of cytotoxic T cells and interferon-gamma

Dr. Facciabene and colleagues found that the irradiated and unirradiated B16 OVA melanoma tumors treated with the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination were infiltrated by CD3+ and CD8+ T cells.

The investigators selectively depleted CD8+ T cells by pretreating the mice with an anti-CD8 monoclonal antibody. Depletion of CD8+ cells prior to administering radiotherapy plus vancomycin abrogated the antitumor effects of the combination treatment, demonstrating that the CD8+ T cells were required.

To characterize the antigen specificity of the tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues used OVA MHC class 1 tetramer. Tumors from mice treated with vancomycin alone, radiotherapy alone, or the combination were dissected. Individual dendritic cells were assayed for OVA tetramer by flow cytometry.

The investigators found that tumors from mice treated with radiotherapy plus vancomycin had a significantly higher number of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells, in comparison with untreated tumors or tumors treated with either vancomycin alone or radiotherapy alone. Since antibody that impaired recognition of MHC class I peptides by T cells ablated the effect, it was clear that antigen recognition was vital.

Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) is known to play a critical role in both differentiation and effector functions of CD8+ cytolytic T cells in the antitumor immune response. To determine whether IFN-gamma is involved in the antitumor effects of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination, the investigators measured intratumoral expression of IFN-gamma in the tumors 5 days after radiotherapy.

IFN-gamma messenger RNA expression levels were significantly elevated in the combination treatment group when compared with either treatment alone. In B16-OVA melanoma–challenged knockout mice, the enhancement of the radiotherapy effects by vancomycin was ablated.

The investigators concluded that vancomycin remodels the tumor microenvironment and increases the functionality of tumor-infiltrating, tumor-specific, CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, IFN-gamma is required to augment the radiotherapy-induced immune effect against the tumor.
 

Potential biochemical mediators of immune effects

The gut microbiota aid host digestion and generate a large repertoire of metabolites after defermentation of fiber. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) constitute the major products of bacterial fermentation.

Acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid represent 95% of total SCFAs present in the intestine. SCFAs are known to directly modulate cytokine production and dendritic cell function.

In their study, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues focused on butyric acid. Using mass spectroscopy, they demonstrated that vancomycin treatment reduces butyrate concentrations in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes by eradicating the major families of SCFA-producing Clostridia species.

To test whether supplementing butyrate could influence the synergy of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination in vivo, the investigators added sodium butyrate to the mice’s drinking water when starting vancomycin treatment. The team then challenged the mice with B16-OVA tumors and treated them with radiotherapy.

In agreement with the group’s prior findings, vancomycin enhanced the tumor-inhibitory effects of radiotherapy, but dietary butyrate inhibited the benefit. The investigators found a significant decrease in the population of B16-OVA–presenting dendritic cells in the lymph nodes of mice receiving the supplemental butyrate.

Dr. Facciabene said these findings were supported by a recent publication. The authors observed that butyrate inhibited type I IFN expression in dendritic cells and radiotherapy-induced, tumor-specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy.
 

Wide-ranging implications

Overall, Dr. Facciabene’s research has shown that:

• Vancomycin significantly enhances the tumor inhibitory effect of targeted radiation, including abscopal effects.
• The synergistic effects are dependent upon IFN-gamma and CD8+ cells.
• Depletion of some gut microbiome species increases antigen presentation by dendritic cells. This is mediated by SCFAs produced by certain bacterial families.
• There are promising new strategies to improve responses to radiotherapy, including targeting gut microbiota.

A clinical trial (NCT03546829) of vancomycin plus stereotactic body radiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer has been launched to investigate these findings further. Early data analysis has shown a significant impact of vancomycin on several species of gut microbiota, according to Dr. Facciabene.

Revolutionary results from immune-targeted therapy in the recent past have highlighted the important role the immune system can play in fighting cancer. Still, up to one-third of cancer patients fail to respond to overtly immune-targeted therapy.

The ability to inhibit cancer cells from evading immune surveillance by using new adjuvants – including those acting on non-traditional targets like gut microbiota – could herald the next major advances in cancer therapy. During his presentation, Dr. Facciabene gave participants an enticing hint of what could be coming for cancer patients in the years ahead.

Dr. Facciabene reported having no relevant disclosures.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research suggests certain gut bacteria can reduce the efficacy of radiotherapy against cancers, but targeting those bacteria with vancomycin can reverse this effect.

Andrea Facciabene, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a preclinical study in which vancomycin enhanced the efficacy of radiotherapy against melanoma and lung cancer. Now, researchers are conducting a clinical trial to determine if vancomycin can have the same effect in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Dr. Facciabene reviewed this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine.

According to Dr. Facciabene, “gut microbiota” includes the more than 1,000 different strains of bacteria living in human intestines. He indicated that the average human has 10 times more bacteria than cells in the body and 150 times more genes in the gut microbiome than in the human genome.

In healthy individuals, the gut microbiota play a key role in intestinal function and digestive processes, modulation of hormones and vitamin secretion, energy extraction from food, and development and maintenance of a balanced immune system.

“Dysbiosis” is the term applied to a change in the composition, diversity, or metabolites of the microbiome from a healthy pattern to one associated with disease. Antibiotic therapy is a classic cause of dysbiosis, and dysbiosis has been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases.

The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome could influence systemic immunity is not known but is relevant to cancer therapy response. Augmenting the frequency and durability of response to immune-targeted treatments – potentially by manipulating the influence of gut microbiota on the immune system – could be highly impactful.
 

Gut microbiota and radiation-induced cell death

Immunogenic cell death – a process by which tumors die and release their intracellular molecular contents – is one of the mechanisms by which radiotherapy kills cancer cells.

Tumor cells succumbing to immunogenic cell death stimulate antigen presenting cells, such as dendritic cells, that engulf tumor antigens and cross-present them to CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes. This process culminates in the generation of a specific immune response capable of killing the malignant cells in the irradiated area, but it also impacts distant nonirradiated tumors – an abscopal effect.

Dr. Facciabene and colleagues hypothesized that alterations of the gut microbiota could have an impact on the effect of radiotherapy. To investigate this, they studied mouse models of melanoma.

The team allowed B16-OVA tumors to grow for 9-12 days, then delivered a single dose of radiotherapy (21 Gy) to one – but not all – tumors. Simultaneously with the delivery of radiotherapy, the investigators started some animals on oral vancomycin. The team chose vancomycin because its effects are localized and impact the gut microbiota directly, without any known systemic effects.

Results showed that vancomycin significantly augmented the impact of radiotherapy in the irradiated area and was associated with regression of remote tumors.

The effects of the combination treatment on tumor volume were significantly greater than the effects of either treatment alone. Since manipulation of the gut microbiome potentiated radiotherapy effects both locally and distantly, the investigators concluded that immunogenic cell death may be involved in both the local and abscopal effects of radiotherapy.

When the experiment was repeated with a lung tumor model, similar findings were observed.
 

Involvement of cytotoxic T cells and interferon-gamma

Dr. Facciabene and colleagues found that the irradiated and unirradiated B16 OVA melanoma tumors treated with the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination were infiltrated by CD3+ and CD8+ T cells.

The investigators selectively depleted CD8+ T cells by pretreating the mice with an anti-CD8 monoclonal antibody. Depletion of CD8+ cells prior to administering radiotherapy plus vancomycin abrogated the antitumor effects of the combination treatment, demonstrating that the CD8+ T cells were required.

To characterize the antigen specificity of the tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues used OVA MHC class 1 tetramer. Tumors from mice treated with vancomycin alone, radiotherapy alone, or the combination were dissected. Individual dendritic cells were assayed for OVA tetramer by flow cytometry.

The investigators found that tumors from mice treated with radiotherapy plus vancomycin had a significantly higher number of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells, in comparison with untreated tumors or tumors treated with either vancomycin alone or radiotherapy alone. Since antibody that impaired recognition of MHC class I peptides by T cells ablated the effect, it was clear that antigen recognition was vital.

Interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) is known to play a critical role in both differentiation and effector functions of CD8+ cytolytic T cells in the antitumor immune response. To determine whether IFN-gamma is involved in the antitumor effects of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination, the investigators measured intratumoral expression of IFN-gamma in the tumors 5 days after radiotherapy.

IFN-gamma messenger RNA expression levels were significantly elevated in the combination treatment group when compared with either treatment alone. In B16-OVA melanoma–challenged knockout mice, the enhancement of the radiotherapy effects by vancomycin was ablated.

The investigators concluded that vancomycin remodels the tumor microenvironment and increases the functionality of tumor-infiltrating, tumor-specific, CD8+ T cells. Furthermore, IFN-gamma is required to augment the radiotherapy-induced immune effect against the tumor.
 

Potential biochemical mediators of immune effects

The gut microbiota aid host digestion and generate a large repertoire of metabolites after defermentation of fiber. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) constitute the major products of bacterial fermentation.

Acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid represent 95% of total SCFAs present in the intestine. SCFAs are known to directly modulate cytokine production and dendritic cell function.

In their study, Dr. Facciabene and colleagues focused on butyric acid. Using mass spectroscopy, they demonstrated that vancomycin treatment reduces butyrate concentrations in tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes by eradicating the major families of SCFA-producing Clostridia species.

To test whether supplementing butyrate could influence the synergy of the radiotherapy-vancomycin combination in vivo, the investigators added sodium butyrate to the mice’s drinking water when starting vancomycin treatment. The team then challenged the mice with B16-OVA tumors and treated them with radiotherapy.

In agreement with the group’s prior findings, vancomycin enhanced the tumor-inhibitory effects of radiotherapy, but dietary butyrate inhibited the benefit. The investigators found a significant decrease in the population of B16-OVA–presenting dendritic cells in the lymph nodes of mice receiving the supplemental butyrate.

Dr. Facciabene said these findings were supported by a recent publication. The authors observed that butyrate inhibited type I IFN expression in dendritic cells and radiotherapy-induced, tumor-specific cytotoxic T-cell immune responses without directly protecting tumor cells from the cytotoxic effects of radiotherapy.
 

Wide-ranging implications

Overall, Dr. Facciabene’s research has shown that:

• Vancomycin significantly enhances the tumor inhibitory effect of targeted radiation, including abscopal effects.
• The synergistic effects are dependent upon IFN-gamma and CD8+ cells.
• Depletion of some gut microbiome species increases antigen presentation by dendritic cells. This is mediated by SCFAs produced by certain bacterial families.
• There are promising new strategies to improve responses to radiotherapy, including targeting gut microbiota.

A clinical trial (NCT03546829) of vancomycin plus stereotactic body radiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer has been launched to investigate these findings further. Early data analysis has shown a significant impact of vancomycin on several species of gut microbiota, according to Dr. Facciabene.

Revolutionary results from immune-targeted therapy in the recent past have highlighted the important role the immune system can play in fighting cancer. Still, up to one-third of cancer patients fail to respond to overtly immune-targeted therapy.

The ability to inhibit cancer cells from evading immune surveillance by using new adjuvants – including those acting on non-traditional targets like gut microbiota – could herald the next major advances in cancer therapy. During his presentation, Dr. Facciabene gave participants an enticing hint of what could be coming for cancer patients in the years ahead.

Dr. Facciabene reported having no relevant disclosures.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

The recommended pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine will last at least another week after a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on April 14 decided not to take action.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.

A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”

At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.

Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.

Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”

“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”

Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
 

What is known, not known

Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.

Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.

No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.

In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.

She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.

Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.

But much more is unknown, she said.

“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.

Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.

Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.

“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”

He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.

ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.

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

The recommended pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine will last at least another week after a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on April 14 decided not to take action.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.

A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”

At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.

Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.

Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”

“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”

Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
 

What is known, not known

Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.

Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.

No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.

In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.

She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.

Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.

But much more is unknown, she said.

“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.

Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.

Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.

“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”

He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.

ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.

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

The recommended pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine will last at least another week after a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee on April 14 decided not to take action.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices decided there was not adequate information to change again recommend use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The committee’s decision comes the day after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that J&J injections be paused after reports of rare, but serious types of blood clots in six patients among the 6.8 million people who had received the J&J vaccine in the United States.

A member of the committee, Beth Bell, MD, said: “I do not want to be sending a message that there is some huge concern here on a different order of magnitude than any other vaccine safety signals that we evaluate. And I don’t want to send a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the vaccine because that also I don’t agree with.”

At the end of the 4-hour meeting, ACIP members decided to call a meeting in 1 or 2 weeks and evaluate more safety data, specifically reports of people who have received the J&J vaccine in the past 2 weeks.

Some, however, pointed out that delaying a decision could have substantial consequences as well in terms of unused vaccine doses and public confidence.

Committee member Camiile Kotton, MD, described the pause as “devastating.”

“Putting this vaccine on pause for those of us that are frontline health care workers has really been devastating,” she said. “I agree in general that we don’t have enough data to make a decision at this time but we were planning on using this vaccine in the state of Massachusetts for people who were homebound and otherwise not able to get a vaccine. We were planning on using it for our vulnerable inpatient population often with many comorbidities and at high risk for disease but haven’t been able to get vaccinated otherwise.”

Pausing the one-and-done vaccine that doesn’t have the significant refrigeration requirements of the others “is a significant loss,” she said.
 

What is known, not known

Sara Oliver, MD, who leads the COVID-19 Vaccines ACIP Work Group, summarized what is known and unknown about the blood clots.

Among the six cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System after the J&J shot, all were women aged 18-48 years and all developed the clots 6-13 days after receiving the vaccine.

No cases of these clots have been reported from either the Pfizer or Moderna shots, she noted.

In the United States, the two mRNA vaccine alternatives – the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines – are available “and based on current projections supply of both vaccines are expected to be relatively stable in the near future,” she said.

She said 14 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna are expected each week in the United States and J&J vaccines makes up less than 5% of vaccines administered in the country.

Approximately 13 million J&J doses are available to order or are already at administration sites, she said.

But much more is unknown, she said.

“There may be more cases identified in the coming days to weeks,” Dr. Oliver said, referring back to the average time from vaccination to symptom onset.

Scott Ratzan, MD, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives and executive director of Business Partners to CONVINCE (BP2C), a global network of employers that promotes COVID-19 vaccination among employees, suppliers, and customers, applauded ACIP’s delay on making a decision.

Dr. Ratzan, who watched the deliberations online, said in an interview the decision “shows an admirable abundance of caution in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the pause also worsens the existing and pervasive vaccine hesitancy issue.

“We need a rational strategy regarding who should or should not get the J&J/Janssen vaccine since these rare adverse events appear to affect a particular group of people, females aged 18-48. It is essential that we build vaccine confidence and retain the option of using this vaccine for people who are not in this risk group.”

He pointed out there are safety red flags with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

“We should feel reassured about the process of ensuring vaccine safety as the FDA and CDC have quickly addressed risk and shared the data transparently of the J&J vaccine and taken appropriate action,” he said.

ACIP’s executive secretary, Amanda Cohn, MD, said the date for the next meeting would be set by April 16.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is addressing the safety of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.

This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.

According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.

In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.

“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. 

“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.

Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria. 

This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.

“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
 

Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized

Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.

Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses. 

Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system. 

The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.

There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.

The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.

Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans. 

Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.

There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.

Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport. 

But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.

The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1. 

Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.

The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.

The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.

So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.

A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.

The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.

“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Studies suggest possible mechanism

On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.

The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.

These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.

It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.

The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.

“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”

No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.

Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising. 
 

Grappling with evidence

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.

Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.

With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.

They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.

Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.

“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.

“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.

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

Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.

KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.

Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.

The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.

“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.

Inactivating KRAS

The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.

But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.

Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

Multiple mutations, histologic transformations

Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.

The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.

The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.

One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.

The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.

In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.

“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
 

Does duration of response matter?

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.

“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”

Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.

“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.

Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.

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

Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.

KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.

Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.

The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.

“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.

Inactivating KRAS

The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.

But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.

Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

Multiple mutations, histologic transformations

Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.

The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.

The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.

One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.

The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.

In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.

“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
 

Does duration of response matter?

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.

“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”

Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.

“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.

Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.

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

Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.

KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.

Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.

The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.

“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.

Inactivating KRAS

The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.

But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.

Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

Multiple mutations, histologic transformations

Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.

The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.

The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.

One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.

The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.

In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.

“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
 

Does duration of response matter?

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.

“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”

Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.

“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.

Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.

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

About 12% of U.S. children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release were hospitalized in 2020. Nearly a third of those had severe disease that required mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open on April 9.*

That means about 1 in 9 kids with COVID-19 in this cohort needed hospitalization, and about 1 in 28 had severe COVID-19.

“Although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, some children develop serious illness that leads to hospitalization, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death,” the researchers wrote.

The research team analyzed discharge data from 869 medical facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. They looked for COVID-19 patients ages 18 and under who had an in-patient or emergency department visit between March and October 2020.

More than 20,700 children with COVID-19 had an in-patient or an emergency department visit, and 2,430 were hospitalized with COVID-19. Among those, 756 children had severe COVID-19 and were admitted to an intensive care unit or needed mechanical ventilation.

About 53% of the COVID-19 patients were girls, and about 54% were between ages 12-18. In addition, about 29% had at least one chronic condition.

Similar to COVID-19 studies in adults, Hispanic, Latino and Black patients were overrepresented. About 39% of the children were Hispanic or Latino, and 24% were Black. However, the researchers didn’t find an association between severe COVID-19 and race or ethnicity.

The likelihood of severe COVID-19 increased if the patient had at least one chronic condition, was male, or was between ages 2-11.

“Understanding factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease among children could help inform prevention and control strategies,” they added. “Reducing infection risk through community mitigation strategies is critical for protecting children from COVID-19 and preventing poor outcomes.”

As of April 8, more than 3.54 million U.S. children have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the latest report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association. Cases among children are increasing slightly, with about 73,000 new cases reported during the first week of April.

Children represent about 13.5% of the COVID-19 cases in the country, according to the report. Among the 24 states that provide data, children represented 1% to 3% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, and less than 2% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization.

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the two groups wrote.

“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects,” they added.

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

*CORRECTION, 6/7/21 – This story has been corrected to clarify that the patient sample study reflects only those children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. A previous version of the story incorrectly implied that 12% of all U.S. children with COVID-19 had required inpatient care.

About 12% of U.S. children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release were hospitalized in 2020. Nearly a third of those had severe disease that required mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open on April 9.*

That means about 1 in 9 kids with COVID-19 in this cohort needed hospitalization, and about 1 in 28 had severe COVID-19.

“Although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, some children develop serious illness that leads to hospitalization, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death,” the researchers wrote.

The research team analyzed discharge data from 869 medical facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. They looked for COVID-19 patients ages 18 and under who had an in-patient or emergency department visit between March and October 2020.

More than 20,700 children with COVID-19 had an in-patient or an emergency department visit, and 2,430 were hospitalized with COVID-19. Among those, 756 children had severe COVID-19 and were admitted to an intensive care unit or needed mechanical ventilation.

About 53% of the COVID-19 patients were girls, and about 54% were between ages 12-18. In addition, about 29% had at least one chronic condition.

Similar to COVID-19 studies in adults, Hispanic, Latino and Black patients were overrepresented. About 39% of the children were Hispanic or Latino, and 24% were Black. However, the researchers didn’t find an association between severe COVID-19 and race or ethnicity.

The likelihood of severe COVID-19 increased if the patient had at least one chronic condition, was male, or was between ages 2-11.

“Understanding factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease among children could help inform prevention and control strategies,” they added. “Reducing infection risk through community mitigation strategies is critical for protecting children from COVID-19 and preventing poor outcomes.”

As of April 8, more than 3.54 million U.S. children have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the latest report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association. Cases among children are increasing slightly, with about 73,000 new cases reported during the first week of April.

Children represent about 13.5% of the COVID-19 cases in the country, according to the report. Among the 24 states that provide data, children represented 1% to 3% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, and less than 2% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization.

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the two groups wrote.

“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects,” they added.

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

*CORRECTION, 6/7/21 – This story has been corrected to clarify that the patient sample study reflects only those children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. A previous version of the story incorrectly implied that 12% of all U.S. children with COVID-19 had required inpatient care.

About 12% of U.S. children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release were hospitalized in 2020. Nearly a third of those had severe disease that required mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open on April 9.*

That means about 1 in 9 kids with COVID-19 in this cohort needed hospitalization, and about 1 in 28 had severe COVID-19.

“Although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, some children develop serious illness that leads to hospitalization, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death,” the researchers wrote.

The research team analyzed discharge data from 869 medical facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. They looked for COVID-19 patients ages 18 and under who had an in-patient or emergency department visit between March and October 2020.

More than 20,700 children with COVID-19 had an in-patient or an emergency department visit, and 2,430 were hospitalized with COVID-19. Among those, 756 children had severe COVID-19 and were admitted to an intensive care unit or needed mechanical ventilation.

About 53% of the COVID-19 patients were girls, and about 54% were between ages 12-18. In addition, about 29% had at least one chronic condition.

Similar to COVID-19 studies in adults, Hispanic, Latino and Black patients were overrepresented. About 39% of the children were Hispanic or Latino, and 24% were Black. However, the researchers didn’t find an association between severe COVID-19 and race or ethnicity.

The likelihood of severe COVID-19 increased if the patient had at least one chronic condition, was male, or was between ages 2-11.

“Understanding factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease among children could help inform prevention and control strategies,” they added. “Reducing infection risk through community mitigation strategies is critical for protecting children from COVID-19 and preventing poor outcomes.”

As of April 8, more than 3.54 million U.S. children have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the latest report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association. Cases among children are increasing slightly, with about 73,000 new cases reported during the first week of April.

Children represent about 13.5% of the COVID-19 cases in the country, according to the report. Among the 24 states that provide data, children represented 1% to 3% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, and less than 2% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization.

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the two groups wrote.

“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects,” they added.

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

*CORRECTION, 6/7/21 – This story has been corrected to clarify that the patient sample study reflects only those children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. A previous version of the story incorrectly implied that 12% of all U.S. children with COVID-19 had required inpatient care.

On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.

The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.

Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.

Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.

Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.  

Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.

While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.

Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.

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

On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.

The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.

Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.

Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.

Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.  

Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.

While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.

Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.

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

On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.

The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.

Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.

Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.

Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.  

Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.

While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.

Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.

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

Two recent articles in the medical literature provide new information on mucocutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children, which may help guide dermatologists in making accurate diagnoses and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.

In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”

In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).

Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).

The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.

“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”

Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”

In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).

In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.

The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”

At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.

Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.

The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.

“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.

“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.

“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
 

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Two recent articles in the medical literature provide new information on mucocutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children, which may help guide dermatologists in making accurate diagnoses and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.

In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”

In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).

Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).

The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.

“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”

Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”

In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).

In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.

The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”

At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.

Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.

The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.

“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.

“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.

“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
 

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Two recent articles in the medical literature provide new information on mucocutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children, which may help guide dermatologists in making accurate diagnoses and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.

In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”

In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).

Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).

The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.

“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”

Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”

In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).

In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.

The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”

At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.

Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.

The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.

“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.

“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.

“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
 

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.

At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.

By 2040, melanoma will have become the second most common cancer type, while prostate cancer will drop in incidence all the way to 14, the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.

These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.

Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.

“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.

The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.

The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.

“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.

“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.

Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.

“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
 

Difference in opinion on prostate cancer

The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.

“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.

“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.

Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.

Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”

Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.

For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.

At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.

By 2040, melanoma will have become the second most common cancer type, while prostate cancer will drop in incidence all the way to 14, the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.

These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.

Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.

“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.

The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.

The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.

“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.

“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.

Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.

“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
 

Difference in opinion on prostate cancer

The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.

“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.

“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.

Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.

Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”

Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.

For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.

At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.

By 2040, melanoma will have become the second most common cancer type, while prostate cancer will drop in incidence all the way to 14, the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.

These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.

Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.

“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.

The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.

The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.

“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.

“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.

Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.

“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
 

Difference in opinion on prostate cancer

The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.

“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.

“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.

Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.

Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”

Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.

For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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