Vaccines

As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.

There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”

Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.

He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
 

How many NOVIDs?

As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.

As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.

While the exact number of people who have remained uninfected isn’t known with certainty, a review of comprehensive serologic data shows about 15% of Americans may not have gotten infected with COVID, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape (WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals) wrote in his substack Ground Truths.

But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.

Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
 

Resistance research

In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”

Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.

Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.

“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’

“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.

He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.

“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.

Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.

“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.

However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”

Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.

The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.

The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
 

The testing ... or lack thereof factor

The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.

“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”

Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
 

Susceptibility research

“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.

Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.

More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
 

NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut

As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.

Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.

He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”

And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.

Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.

“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”

However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.

Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.

Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.

Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.

When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”

One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.

She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”

Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.

At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.

Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
 

Bragging rights?

Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it. 

And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?

“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”

Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.

Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■

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

As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.

There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”

Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.

He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
 

How many NOVIDs?

As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.

As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.

While the exact number of people who have remained uninfected isn’t known with certainty, a review of comprehensive serologic data shows about 15% of Americans may not have gotten infected with COVID, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape (WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals) wrote in his substack Ground Truths.

But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.

Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
 

Resistance research

In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”

Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.

Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.

“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’

“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.

He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.

“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.

Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.

“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.

However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”

Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.

The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.

The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
 

The testing ... or lack thereof factor

The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.

“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”

Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
 

Susceptibility research

“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.

Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.

More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
 

NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut

As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.

Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.

He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”

And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.

Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.

“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”

However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.

Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.

Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.

Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.

When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”

One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.

She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”

Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.

At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.

Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
 

Bragging rights?

Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it. 

And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?

“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”

Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.

Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■

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

As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.

There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”

Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.

He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
 

How many NOVIDs?

As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.

As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.

While the exact number of people who have remained uninfected isn’t known with certainty, a review of comprehensive serologic data shows about 15% of Americans may not have gotten infected with COVID, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape (WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals) wrote in his substack Ground Truths.

But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.

Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
 

Resistance research

In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”

Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.

Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.

“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’

“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.

He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.

“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.

Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.

“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.

However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”

Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.

The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.

The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
 

The testing ... or lack thereof factor

The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.

“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”

Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
 

Susceptibility research

“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.

Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.

More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
 

NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut

As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.

Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.

He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”

And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.

Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.

“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”

However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.

Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.

Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.

Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.

When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”

One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.

She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”

Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.

At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.

Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
 

Bragging rights?

Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it. 

And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?

“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”

Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.

Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■

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

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) health advisory notifying clinicians and public health officials of a confirmed measles case in an individual who for 2 days (February 17-18) attended a large religious gathering that was attended by an estimated 20,000 people at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky.

Given that large numbers of people might have been exposed to the attendee (who was not vaccinated) and that the individual had a history of recent international travel, the CDC has encouraged clinicians to be vigilant for patients presenting with symptoms that meet the measles case definition. A steady increase in measles cases from 49 in 2021 to 121 in 2022 in children who were not fully vaccinated – coupled with outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota – underscores the potential gravity of the CDC advisory as well as the need to mitigate the risk of ongoing or secondary transmission.

Currently, little is known about the individual who contracted measles other than the fact that he is a resident of Jessamine County, Ky., according to a news release issued by the Kentucky Department of Public Health. It is the third confirmed case in Kentucky over the past 3 months. State and national health officials are concerned that the individual might have transmitted measles to attendees visiting from other states.

David Sugerman, MD, MPH, a medical officer in CDC’s division of viral diseases and lead for the measles, rubella, and cytomegalovirus team, noted that the timing of the alert coincides with the period in which persons who had had contact with the initial case patient might be expected to develop symptoms.

For clinicians, “It’s really about considering measles in any un- or undervaccinated patient that arrives at a clinic and recently traveled internationally,” Dr. Sugerman told this news organization. He explained that “when doctors are seeing patients, they’re not going to necessarily share that information off the bat when they present with fever or rash, or if their child has fever and rash, or that they traveled internationally. So, eliciting that history from the patient or their parents is really critical.”

The CDC recommends that measles be considered in anyone presenting with a febrile illness and symptoms that are clinically compatible with measles (that is, rash, cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis), as well as in patients who have recently traveled abroad, especially to countries with ongoing outbreaks, including India, Somalia, and Yemen.

“In general, if they’ve traveled internationally and they are undervaccinated, measles should be part of the differential diagnosis,” Sugerman said. He also emphasized the need to follow airborne isolation precautions in addition to general infection control measures.

Immediate triage is critical, especially since overcrowded waiting rooms might be filled with patients who are not yet eligible for vaccination or are not up to date or fully vaccinated.

“Measles is under airborne isolation criteria and precautions, and therefore, [patients] need to be placed as soon as possible into a negative pressure or airborne infection isolation room – and that should be a single room,” he explained. He noted, “In some settings, there may not be a negative pressure room, e.g., an outpatient pediatrics or family medicine office.”

Dr. Sugerman said that in these circumstances, patients should be placed in a room with masked health care providers who have received two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and that they should wear an N95 mask when entering the room and interviewing the patient.

Clinicians should follow CDC’s testing recommendations and collect a nasopharyngeal or throat swab or a urine specimen for PCR testing and a blood specimen for serology. In addition, they should immediately report cases to local and state public health authorities.

For all patients, it’s critical to be up to date on MMR vaccines, especially persons who are going to be traveling internationally. “We recommend that when they’ve got infants traveling with them who are 6-11 months of age, that they get a first dose (which we consider a zero dose), because they need a routine dose at 12-15 months, and then 4-6 years,” said Dr. Sugerman. He said that it’s safe for adults who are unsure of their status to receive an MMR dose as well.

Dr. Sugerman stressed that despite major strides, “we just don’t have enough coverage in all individuals in this country. Because people are traveling as often as they are, it can be imported. Until measles is eliminated globally, there’s going to be an ongoing risk of importation and potential spread amongst others in their household or community, especially amongst individuals who are not fully vaccinated and, in particular, amongst those who are unvaccinated,” he said.

Dr. Sugerman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) health advisory notifying clinicians and public health officials of a confirmed measles case in an individual who for 2 days (February 17-18) attended a large religious gathering that was attended by an estimated 20,000 people at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky.

Given that large numbers of people might have been exposed to the attendee (who was not vaccinated) and that the individual had a history of recent international travel, the CDC has encouraged clinicians to be vigilant for patients presenting with symptoms that meet the measles case definition. A steady increase in measles cases from 49 in 2021 to 121 in 2022 in children who were not fully vaccinated – coupled with outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota – underscores the potential gravity of the CDC advisory as well as the need to mitigate the risk of ongoing or secondary transmission.

Currently, little is known about the individual who contracted measles other than the fact that he is a resident of Jessamine County, Ky., according to a news release issued by the Kentucky Department of Public Health. It is the third confirmed case in Kentucky over the past 3 months. State and national health officials are concerned that the individual might have transmitted measles to attendees visiting from other states.

David Sugerman, MD, MPH, a medical officer in CDC’s division of viral diseases and lead for the measles, rubella, and cytomegalovirus team, noted that the timing of the alert coincides with the period in which persons who had had contact with the initial case patient might be expected to develop symptoms.

For clinicians, “It’s really about considering measles in any un- or undervaccinated patient that arrives at a clinic and recently traveled internationally,” Dr. Sugerman told this news organization. He explained that “when doctors are seeing patients, they’re not going to necessarily share that information off the bat when they present with fever or rash, or if their child has fever and rash, or that they traveled internationally. So, eliciting that history from the patient or their parents is really critical.”

The CDC recommends that measles be considered in anyone presenting with a febrile illness and symptoms that are clinically compatible with measles (that is, rash, cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis), as well as in patients who have recently traveled abroad, especially to countries with ongoing outbreaks, including India, Somalia, and Yemen.

“In general, if they’ve traveled internationally and they are undervaccinated, measles should be part of the differential diagnosis,” Sugerman said. He also emphasized the need to follow airborne isolation precautions in addition to general infection control measures.

Immediate triage is critical, especially since overcrowded waiting rooms might be filled with patients who are not yet eligible for vaccination or are not up to date or fully vaccinated.

“Measles is under airborne isolation criteria and precautions, and therefore, [patients] need to be placed as soon as possible into a negative pressure or airborne infection isolation room – and that should be a single room,” he explained. He noted, “In some settings, there may not be a negative pressure room, e.g., an outpatient pediatrics or family medicine office.”

Dr. Sugerman said that in these circumstances, patients should be placed in a room with masked health care providers who have received two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and that they should wear an N95 mask when entering the room and interviewing the patient.

Clinicians should follow CDC’s testing recommendations and collect a nasopharyngeal or throat swab or a urine specimen for PCR testing and a blood specimen for serology. In addition, they should immediately report cases to local and state public health authorities.

For all patients, it’s critical to be up to date on MMR vaccines, especially persons who are going to be traveling internationally. “We recommend that when they’ve got infants traveling with them who are 6-11 months of age, that they get a first dose (which we consider a zero dose), because they need a routine dose at 12-15 months, and then 4-6 years,” said Dr. Sugerman. He said that it’s safe for adults who are unsure of their status to receive an MMR dose as well.

Dr. Sugerman stressed that despite major strides, “we just don’t have enough coverage in all individuals in this country. Because people are traveling as often as they are, it can be imported. Until measles is eliminated globally, there’s going to be an ongoing risk of importation and potential spread amongst others in their household or community, especially amongst individuals who are not fully vaccinated and, in particular, amongst those who are unvaccinated,” he said.

Dr. Sugerman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) health advisory notifying clinicians and public health officials of a confirmed measles case in an individual who for 2 days (February 17-18) attended a large religious gathering that was attended by an estimated 20,000 people at Asbury University in Wilmore, Ky.

Given that large numbers of people might have been exposed to the attendee (who was not vaccinated) and that the individual had a history of recent international travel, the CDC has encouraged clinicians to be vigilant for patients presenting with symptoms that meet the measles case definition. A steady increase in measles cases from 49 in 2021 to 121 in 2022 in children who were not fully vaccinated – coupled with outbreaks in Ohio and Minnesota – underscores the potential gravity of the CDC advisory as well as the need to mitigate the risk of ongoing or secondary transmission.

Currently, little is known about the individual who contracted measles other than the fact that he is a resident of Jessamine County, Ky., according to a news release issued by the Kentucky Department of Public Health. It is the third confirmed case in Kentucky over the past 3 months. State and national health officials are concerned that the individual might have transmitted measles to attendees visiting from other states.

David Sugerman, MD, MPH, a medical officer in CDC’s division of viral diseases and lead for the measles, rubella, and cytomegalovirus team, noted that the timing of the alert coincides with the period in which persons who had had contact with the initial case patient might be expected to develop symptoms.

For clinicians, “It’s really about considering measles in any un- or undervaccinated patient that arrives at a clinic and recently traveled internationally,” Dr. Sugerman told this news organization. He explained that “when doctors are seeing patients, they’re not going to necessarily share that information off the bat when they present with fever or rash, or if their child has fever and rash, or that they traveled internationally. So, eliciting that history from the patient or their parents is really critical.”

The CDC recommends that measles be considered in anyone presenting with a febrile illness and symptoms that are clinically compatible with measles (that is, rash, cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis), as well as in patients who have recently traveled abroad, especially to countries with ongoing outbreaks, including India, Somalia, and Yemen.

“In general, if they’ve traveled internationally and they are undervaccinated, measles should be part of the differential diagnosis,” Sugerman said. He also emphasized the need to follow airborne isolation precautions in addition to general infection control measures.

Immediate triage is critical, especially since overcrowded waiting rooms might be filled with patients who are not yet eligible for vaccination or are not up to date or fully vaccinated.

“Measles is under airborne isolation criteria and precautions, and therefore, [patients] need to be placed as soon as possible into a negative pressure or airborne infection isolation room – and that should be a single room,” he explained. He noted, “In some settings, there may not be a negative pressure room, e.g., an outpatient pediatrics or family medicine office.”

Dr. Sugerman said that in these circumstances, patients should be placed in a room with masked health care providers who have received two doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and that they should wear an N95 mask when entering the room and interviewing the patient.

Clinicians should follow CDC’s testing recommendations and collect a nasopharyngeal or throat swab or a urine specimen for PCR testing and a blood specimen for serology. In addition, they should immediately report cases to local and state public health authorities.

For all patients, it’s critical to be up to date on MMR vaccines, especially persons who are going to be traveling internationally. “We recommend that when they’ve got infants traveling with them who are 6-11 months of age, that they get a first dose (which we consider a zero dose), because they need a routine dose at 12-15 months, and then 4-6 years,” said Dr. Sugerman. He said that it’s safe for adults who are unsure of their status to receive an MMR dose as well.

Dr. Sugerman stressed that despite major strides, “we just don’t have enough coverage in all individuals in this country. Because people are traveling as often as they are, it can be imported. Until measles is eliminated globally, there’s going to be an ongoing risk of importation and potential spread amongst others in their household or community, especially amongst individuals who are not fully vaccinated and, in particular, amongst those who are unvaccinated,” he said.

Dr. Sugerman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 1 in 4 parents lied to school officials about their children’s COVID-19 status or refused to comply with public health rules during the height of the pandemic, a new study found. Researchers said they suspected the 26% of parents who misrepresented their children’s health status may have undercounted the actual figure.

“If anything, 26% is probably the minimum” of parents who misled school officials, said Angela Fagerlin, PhD, a researcher at the University of Utah Medical School, Salt Lake City.

In the survey, many parents said they considered it their right as parents to make their own decision about their children’s health status, said Dr. Fagerlin, who is also the chair of the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

“It appears that many parents were concerned about their children missing school,” she said. “At the same time, they’re potentially exposing other kids to a serious illness.”

In the survey, parents were asked whether they lied or misrepresented information about their children on seven different COVID-19 topics, including illness and vaccination status and if they followed quarantine protocols. Researchers tallied survey responses collected in December 2021 from 580 parents, whose average age was 36 and of whom 70% were women. Results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Overall, 24% of parents said they lied to people that their children were with while knowing or suspecting the children had COVID. About half of parents cited at least one of the following reasons for doing so: parental freedom, child did not feel very sick, or wanted the child’s life to feel “normal.”

About 20% of parents said they avoided testing when they thought their child had COVID, and parents also reported allowing children to break quarantine rules at a similar rate. More than half of parents who avoided testing said they were worried testing would hurt or feel uncomfortable.

About 4 in 10 parents who lied about their child’s illness status or who lied about whether their child should be in quarantine said they did so because of guidance from a public figure such as a celebrity or politician. At least 3 in 10 said they lied because they could not miss work to stay home with their child.

“We need to do a better job of providing support mechanisms like paid sick leave for family illness so that parents don’t feel like their only option is to engage in misrepresentation or non-adherence to public health guidelines during a future infectious disease outbreak that matches or exceeds the magnitude of COVID-19,” says researcher Andrea Gurmankin Levy, PhD, of Middlesex (Conn.) Community College.

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

More than 1 in 4 parents lied to school officials about their children’s COVID-19 status or refused to comply with public health rules during the height of the pandemic, a new study found. Researchers said they suspected the 26% of parents who misrepresented their children’s health status may have undercounted the actual figure.

“If anything, 26% is probably the minimum” of parents who misled school officials, said Angela Fagerlin, PhD, a researcher at the University of Utah Medical School, Salt Lake City.

In the survey, many parents said they considered it their right as parents to make their own decision about their children’s health status, said Dr. Fagerlin, who is also the chair of the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

“It appears that many parents were concerned about their children missing school,” she said. “At the same time, they’re potentially exposing other kids to a serious illness.”

In the survey, parents were asked whether they lied or misrepresented information about their children on seven different COVID-19 topics, including illness and vaccination status and if they followed quarantine protocols. Researchers tallied survey responses collected in December 2021 from 580 parents, whose average age was 36 and of whom 70% were women. Results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Overall, 24% of parents said they lied to people that their children were with while knowing or suspecting the children had COVID. About half of parents cited at least one of the following reasons for doing so: parental freedom, child did not feel very sick, or wanted the child’s life to feel “normal.”

About 20% of parents said they avoided testing when they thought their child had COVID, and parents also reported allowing children to break quarantine rules at a similar rate. More than half of parents who avoided testing said they were worried testing would hurt or feel uncomfortable.

About 4 in 10 parents who lied about their child’s illness status or who lied about whether their child should be in quarantine said they did so because of guidance from a public figure such as a celebrity or politician. At least 3 in 10 said they lied because they could not miss work to stay home with their child.

“We need to do a better job of providing support mechanisms like paid sick leave for family illness so that parents don’t feel like their only option is to engage in misrepresentation or non-adherence to public health guidelines during a future infectious disease outbreak that matches or exceeds the magnitude of COVID-19,” says researcher Andrea Gurmankin Levy, PhD, of Middlesex (Conn.) Community College.

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

More than 1 in 4 parents lied to school officials about their children’s COVID-19 status or refused to comply with public health rules during the height of the pandemic, a new study found. Researchers said they suspected the 26% of parents who misrepresented their children’s health status may have undercounted the actual figure.

“If anything, 26% is probably the minimum” of parents who misled school officials, said Angela Fagerlin, PhD, a researcher at the University of Utah Medical School, Salt Lake City.

In the survey, many parents said they considered it their right as parents to make their own decision about their children’s health status, said Dr. Fagerlin, who is also the chair of the department of population health sciences at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

“It appears that many parents were concerned about their children missing school,” she said. “At the same time, they’re potentially exposing other kids to a serious illness.”

In the survey, parents were asked whether they lied or misrepresented information about their children on seven different COVID-19 topics, including illness and vaccination status and if they followed quarantine protocols. Researchers tallied survey responses collected in December 2021 from 580 parents, whose average age was 36 and of whom 70% were women. Results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Overall, 24% of parents said they lied to people that their children were with while knowing or suspecting the children had COVID. About half of parents cited at least one of the following reasons for doing so: parental freedom, child did not feel very sick, or wanted the child’s life to feel “normal.”

About 20% of parents said they avoided testing when they thought their child had COVID, and parents also reported allowing children to break quarantine rules at a similar rate. More than half of parents who avoided testing said they were worried testing would hurt or feel uncomfortable.

About 4 in 10 parents who lied about their child’s illness status or who lied about whether their child should be in quarantine said they did so because of guidance from a public figure such as a celebrity or politician. At least 3 in 10 said they lied because they could not miss work to stay home with their child.

“We need to do a better job of providing support mechanisms like paid sick leave for family illness so that parents don’t feel like their only option is to engage in misrepresentation or non-adherence to public health guidelines during a future infectious disease outbreak that matches or exceeds the magnitude of COVID-19,” says researcher Andrea Gurmankin Levy, PhD, of Middlesex (Conn.) Community College.

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

HONOLULU – With so many kids missing childhood vaccinations during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, think measles in patients who present with high fever, cough, and a maculopapular eruption.

“Measles is one of the most contagious of human viruses, and we are seeing a resurgence,” Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, and chief of pediatric dermatology at the Universtiy of Texas, Houston, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “This is a re-emerging viral infection that dermatologists must recognize. Measles often starts behind the ears, and the eruption can look a lot like a drug eruption,” she noted. “Many of my pediatric colleagues have never seen a case of measles before because we have had a vaccine since 1963. Measles can almost entirely be prevented with vaccination. You get herd immunity if both doses have been administered to 95% of the population.”

In 2021, the World Health Organization estimated that 25 million children worldwide missed the measles vaccine. This caused 9 million cases of measles and 128,000 deaths in 22 countries, mainly from viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia, and postviral encephalitis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,274 measles cases occurred in 31 states in 2019, mostly in individuals who were not vaccinated against it. Reported cases fell to 13 in 2020 but rose to 49 cases in 2021 and to 121 cases in 2022. As of Feb. 28, 2023, three cases have been reported in the United States.

“Measles spreads through direct contact with an infected person and through airborne transmission,” said Dr. Hebert, who recommended an article published in The Lancet for background on the topic. “Unlike COVID-19, measles has not mutated, so the original measles vaccine will work very well.”

Common clinical signs of measles include a generalized, maculopapular eruption lasting for 3 days or more, a temperature above 101° F plus cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis. Confirmation of measles can be made by PCR for viral RNA. Clinicians can also send a blood draw to the state public health lab for analysis. The serologic standard is a fourfold rise or fall in IgG titer with a paired sample sent 10-14 days after the initial collection.

“You can administer immune globulin up to 6 days after exposure to potentially prevent measles or decrease severity [in] immunocompromised hosts not previously vaccinated,” she said. The recommended intramuscular dose is 0.5 mL/kg, up to a dose of 15 mL/kg. Treatment is supportive and focused on relieving common symptoms and providing nutritional support. Administration of vitamin A is currently recommended for all children with acute measles.

Vitamin A supplements are available either as capsules (50,000 IU; 100,000 IU; 200,000 IU) or in liquid form. Parenteral formulations are also available. “Capsules need to be cut open and the contents squeezed into the mouths of children younger than 2 years,” Dr. Hebert said. “Capsules have the advantage that they can be given to mothers for administration at home.”

The recommended dosage of vitamin A in children is as follows, she said:

• Aged 12 months or older: 200,000 IU daily for 2 days.
• Aged 6 to 11 months: 100,000 IU daily for 2 days.
• Aged 6 months or younger: 50,000 IU daily for 2 days.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a third dose given 2-4 weeks later to children with clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin A deficiency.

In an interview following the meeting, Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas, Austin, emphasized that when clinicians evaluate pediatric patients with viral symptoms such as fever, cough, and skin eruption, “measles should be in the differential diagnosis.” The 2022 uptick in measles cases “would be another reason to engage in regular vaccinations.”

Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or advisor for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica.

Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or advisor for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

HONOLULU – With so many kids missing childhood vaccinations during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, think measles in patients who present with high fever, cough, and a maculopapular eruption.

“Measles is one of the most contagious of human viruses, and we are seeing a resurgence,” Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, and chief of pediatric dermatology at the Universtiy of Texas, Houston, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “This is a re-emerging viral infection that dermatologists must recognize. Measles often starts behind the ears, and the eruption can look a lot like a drug eruption,” she noted. “Many of my pediatric colleagues have never seen a case of measles before because we have had a vaccine since 1963. Measles can almost entirely be prevented with vaccination. You get herd immunity if both doses have been administered to 95% of the population.”

In 2021, the World Health Organization estimated that 25 million children worldwide missed the measles vaccine. This caused 9 million cases of measles and 128,000 deaths in 22 countries, mainly from viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia, and postviral encephalitis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,274 measles cases occurred in 31 states in 2019, mostly in individuals who were not vaccinated against it. Reported cases fell to 13 in 2020 but rose to 49 cases in 2021 and to 121 cases in 2022. As of Feb. 28, 2023, three cases have been reported in the United States.

“Measles spreads through direct contact with an infected person and through airborne transmission,” said Dr. Hebert, who recommended an article published in The Lancet for background on the topic. “Unlike COVID-19, measles has not mutated, so the original measles vaccine will work very well.”

Common clinical signs of measles include a generalized, maculopapular eruption lasting for 3 days or more, a temperature above 101° F plus cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis. Confirmation of measles can be made by PCR for viral RNA. Clinicians can also send a blood draw to the state public health lab for analysis. The serologic standard is a fourfold rise or fall in IgG titer with a paired sample sent 10-14 days after the initial collection.

“You can administer immune globulin up to 6 days after exposure to potentially prevent measles or decrease severity [in] immunocompromised hosts not previously vaccinated,” she said. The recommended intramuscular dose is 0.5 mL/kg, up to a dose of 15 mL/kg. Treatment is supportive and focused on relieving common symptoms and providing nutritional support. Administration of vitamin A is currently recommended for all children with acute measles.

Vitamin A supplements are available either as capsules (50,000 IU; 100,000 IU; 200,000 IU) or in liquid form. Parenteral formulations are also available. “Capsules need to be cut open and the contents squeezed into the mouths of children younger than 2 years,” Dr. Hebert said. “Capsules have the advantage that they can be given to mothers for administration at home.”

The recommended dosage of vitamin A in children is as follows, she said:

• Aged 12 months or older: 200,000 IU daily for 2 days.
• Aged 6 to 11 months: 100,000 IU daily for 2 days.
• Aged 6 months or younger: 50,000 IU daily for 2 days.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a third dose given 2-4 weeks later to children with clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin A deficiency.

In an interview following the meeting, Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas, Austin, emphasized that when clinicians evaluate pediatric patients with viral symptoms such as fever, cough, and skin eruption, “measles should be in the differential diagnosis.” The 2022 uptick in measles cases “would be another reason to engage in regular vaccinations.”

Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or advisor for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica.

Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or advisor for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

HONOLULU – With so many kids missing childhood vaccinations during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, think measles in patients who present with high fever, cough, and a maculopapular eruption.

“Measles is one of the most contagious of human viruses, and we are seeing a resurgence,” Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, and chief of pediatric dermatology at the Universtiy of Texas, Houston, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “This is a re-emerging viral infection that dermatologists must recognize. Measles often starts behind the ears, and the eruption can look a lot like a drug eruption,” she noted. “Many of my pediatric colleagues have never seen a case of measles before because we have had a vaccine since 1963. Measles can almost entirely be prevented with vaccination. You get herd immunity if both doses have been administered to 95% of the population.”

In 2021, the World Health Organization estimated that 25 million children worldwide missed the measles vaccine. This caused 9 million cases of measles and 128,000 deaths in 22 countries, mainly from viral pneumonia, secondary bacterial pneumonia, and postviral encephalitis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,274 measles cases occurred in 31 states in 2019, mostly in individuals who were not vaccinated against it. Reported cases fell to 13 in 2020 but rose to 49 cases in 2021 and to 121 cases in 2022. As of Feb. 28, 2023, three cases have been reported in the United States.

“Measles spreads through direct contact with an infected person and through airborne transmission,” said Dr. Hebert, who recommended an article published in The Lancet for background on the topic. “Unlike COVID-19, measles has not mutated, so the original measles vaccine will work very well.”

Common clinical signs of measles include a generalized, maculopapular eruption lasting for 3 days or more, a temperature above 101° F plus cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis. Confirmation of measles can be made by PCR for viral RNA. Clinicians can also send a blood draw to the state public health lab for analysis. The serologic standard is a fourfold rise or fall in IgG titer with a paired sample sent 10-14 days after the initial collection.

“You can administer immune globulin up to 6 days after exposure to potentially prevent measles or decrease severity [in] immunocompromised hosts not previously vaccinated,” she said. The recommended intramuscular dose is 0.5 mL/kg, up to a dose of 15 mL/kg. Treatment is supportive and focused on relieving common symptoms and providing nutritional support. Administration of vitamin A is currently recommended for all children with acute measles.

Vitamin A supplements are available either as capsules (50,000 IU; 100,000 IU; 200,000 IU) or in liquid form. Parenteral formulations are also available. “Capsules need to be cut open and the contents squeezed into the mouths of children younger than 2 years,” Dr. Hebert said. “Capsules have the advantage that they can be given to mothers for administration at home.”

The recommended dosage of vitamin A in children is as follows, she said:

• Aged 12 months or older: 200,000 IU daily for 2 days.
• Aged 6 to 11 months: 100,000 IU daily for 2 days.
• Aged 6 months or younger: 50,000 IU daily for 2 days.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a third dose given 2-4 weeks later to children with clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin A deficiency.

In an interview following the meeting, Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas, Austin, emphasized that when clinicians evaluate pediatric patients with viral symptoms such as fever, cough, and skin eruption, “measles should be in the differential diagnosis.” The 2022 uptick in measles cases “would be another reason to engage in regular vaccinations.”

Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or advisor for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica.

Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or advisor for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest study to show high efficacy of doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) adds a new twist, showing – for the first time – reductions in gonorrhea among those receiving the meningococcal B vaccine.

“Among men who have sex with men on HIV PrEP, doxycycline PEP significantly reduced the incidence of chlamydia and syphilis and also had a significant impact on the incidence of gonorrhea,” said first author Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, in presenting the findings at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

In addition, “two doses of the meningococcal B vaccine reduced the incidence of a first episode of gonorrhea by roughly 50% among men who have sex with men,” said Dr. Molina, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Paris, and head of the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris.

Whereas the advent of PrEP has been associated with significant reductions in HIV transmission, rates of STIs have conversely been on the rise among MSM, specifically among those receiving PrEP.

Post-exposure prophylaxis with Doxy PEP has been shown to reduce the incidence of chlamydia and syphilis by approximately 70%; however, effects on prevention of gonorrhea have been less clear.

Meningococcal B vaccination has, meanwhile, shown intriguing reductions of gonorrhea incidence of as much as 26%-46% in some observational studies.

Therefore, Dr. Molina and colleagues decided to further investigate Doxy PEP as well as the meningococcal B vaccine in prevention of STIs.

For the ANRS 174 DOXYVAC trial, they enrolled 546 MSM in the open-label, multicenter study between January 2021 and July 2022.

The men were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups: doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP: 200 mg; n = 332), no Doxy PEP (n = 170), two shots of meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB vaccine; n = 257), or no 4CMenB vaccine (n = 245).

All participants were assigned to their groups within 72 hours of condomless sex.

The men, who had a median age of 39, had a median time of PrEP use of 42 months, a history of an STI in the past year, and their median number of sexual partners in the past 3 months was 10.

Their characteristics were well-balanced across the treatment groups. After discontinuations of 54 patients across the groups, the final analysis included 502 participants.

With a median follow-up of 9 months, the intent-to-treat analysis showed 13 subjects had a first episode of chlamydia or syphilis in the Doxy PEP group, versus 49 subjects infected in the no Doxy PEP arm, for an incidence of 5.6 versus 35.4 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; P < .0001).

Infection specifically with chlamydia occurred among 21 men with no Doxy PEP versus 5 receiving Dox PEP (19.3 vs. 2.1 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.11; P < .0001).

And infection with syphilis occurred in 18 men receiving no Doxy PEP versus 8 receiving the treatment (16.3 vs. 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.21; P < .001).

The corresponding rates for gonorrhea infection were an incidence 41.3 versus 20.5 per 100 person-years, in the no Doxy PEP versus Doxy PEP arms, respectively (adjusted HR, 0.49; P = .001), and 29.4 versus 16.8 per 100 person-years for Mycoplasma genitalium infection (aHR, 0.55; P = .015).

Throughout the study, about 80% of patients in the Doxy PEP group reported using the prophylaxis treatment after their most recent sexual intercourse, with subjects reporting taking a median of seven pills per month.

In the vaccine/no vaccine comparisons, 32 subjects in the no meningococcal vaccine group were infected with a first gonorrhea infection, compared with 17 in the vaccine group, representing an incidence of 19.7 versus 9.8 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted HR, 0.49; P = .016), which Dr. Molina called “highly significant.”

An analysis of the cumulative incidence of gonorrhea infection with the meningococcal vaccine showed rates in the no vaccine versus vaccine groups of 30.4 versus 20.1 per 100 person-years, respectively; however, statistical significance was not reached (aHR, 0.66; P = .052).

Importantly, there were no significant interactions in the results between those receiving Doxy PEP or the 4CMenB vaccine group, and there were no significant differences in drug-related serious adverse events between the groups.

Dr. Molina noted that the meningococcal B vaccine is known to contain key antigens that are shared between meningitis and gonorrhea, which could explain the benefits.

Although chlamydia and syphilis thus far appear to remain susceptible to Doxy PEP, resistances with gonorrhea remain a concern, hence the ability of the vaccine to provide some protection could be an added bonus.

“We know that [gonorrhea] is able to very quickly develop resistances to any antibiotics, so that was why we wanted to look beyond the antibiotic prophylaxis,” said Dr. Molina.

Among questions to explore looking ahead is the potential longevity of protection with the vaccine.

“We don’t know at this point how long the protection with the vaccine could last, or if [people] may need booster injections, for instance, but the literature suggests benefits for at least a year,” Dr. Molina said. “We are still monitoring the patients in the study to see what happens.”

He added that combination of the interventions may be of benefit.

“In the future, we think we may need to combine these approaches if we want to meet the WHO/UNAIDS targets to reduce the incidence of HIV and STIs by 90% by 2030.”

Commenting on the study, CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, noted that “gonorrhea develops resistance quickly and can be hard to treat or prophylaxis, so the vaccine finding, which was hinted at by previous observational data, is really important.”

He agrees that “the duration of protective efficacy – a big thing in vaccines – is unknown.”

“Still, this is really significant,” Dr. Myer stressed. “An efficacious vaccine against a stubborn sexually transmitted infection.”

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

The latest study to show high efficacy of doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) adds a new twist, showing – for the first time – reductions in gonorrhea among those receiving the meningococcal B vaccine.

“Among men who have sex with men on HIV PrEP, doxycycline PEP significantly reduced the incidence of chlamydia and syphilis and also had a significant impact on the incidence of gonorrhea,” said first author Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, in presenting the findings at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

In addition, “two doses of the meningococcal B vaccine reduced the incidence of a first episode of gonorrhea by roughly 50% among men who have sex with men,” said Dr. Molina, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Paris, and head of the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris.

Whereas the advent of PrEP has been associated with significant reductions in HIV transmission, rates of STIs have conversely been on the rise among MSM, specifically among those receiving PrEP.

Post-exposure prophylaxis with Doxy PEP has been shown to reduce the incidence of chlamydia and syphilis by approximately 70%; however, effects on prevention of gonorrhea have been less clear.

Meningococcal B vaccination has, meanwhile, shown intriguing reductions of gonorrhea incidence of as much as 26%-46% in some observational studies.

Therefore, Dr. Molina and colleagues decided to further investigate Doxy PEP as well as the meningococcal B vaccine in prevention of STIs.

For the ANRS 174 DOXYVAC trial, they enrolled 546 MSM in the open-label, multicenter study between January 2021 and July 2022.

The men were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups: doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP: 200 mg; n = 332), no Doxy PEP (n = 170), two shots of meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB vaccine; n = 257), or no 4CMenB vaccine (n = 245).

All participants were assigned to their groups within 72 hours of condomless sex.

The men, who had a median age of 39, had a median time of PrEP use of 42 months, a history of an STI in the past year, and their median number of sexual partners in the past 3 months was 10.

Their characteristics were well-balanced across the treatment groups. After discontinuations of 54 patients across the groups, the final analysis included 502 participants.

With a median follow-up of 9 months, the intent-to-treat analysis showed 13 subjects had a first episode of chlamydia or syphilis in the Doxy PEP group, versus 49 subjects infected in the no Doxy PEP arm, for an incidence of 5.6 versus 35.4 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; P < .0001).

Infection specifically with chlamydia occurred among 21 men with no Doxy PEP versus 5 receiving Dox PEP (19.3 vs. 2.1 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.11; P < .0001).

And infection with syphilis occurred in 18 men receiving no Doxy PEP versus 8 receiving the treatment (16.3 vs. 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.21; P < .001).

The corresponding rates for gonorrhea infection were an incidence 41.3 versus 20.5 per 100 person-years, in the no Doxy PEP versus Doxy PEP arms, respectively (adjusted HR, 0.49; P = .001), and 29.4 versus 16.8 per 100 person-years for Mycoplasma genitalium infection (aHR, 0.55; P = .015).

Throughout the study, about 80% of patients in the Doxy PEP group reported using the prophylaxis treatment after their most recent sexual intercourse, with subjects reporting taking a median of seven pills per month.

In the vaccine/no vaccine comparisons, 32 subjects in the no meningococcal vaccine group were infected with a first gonorrhea infection, compared with 17 in the vaccine group, representing an incidence of 19.7 versus 9.8 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted HR, 0.49; P = .016), which Dr. Molina called “highly significant.”

An analysis of the cumulative incidence of gonorrhea infection with the meningococcal vaccine showed rates in the no vaccine versus vaccine groups of 30.4 versus 20.1 per 100 person-years, respectively; however, statistical significance was not reached (aHR, 0.66; P = .052).

Importantly, there were no significant interactions in the results between those receiving Doxy PEP or the 4CMenB vaccine group, and there were no significant differences in drug-related serious adverse events between the groups.

Dr. Molina noted that the meningococcal B vaccine is known to contain key antigens that are shared between meningitis and gonorrhea, which could explain the benefits.

Although chlamydia and syphilis thus far appear to remain susceptible to Doxy PEP, resistances with gonorrhea remain a concern, hence the ability of the vaccine to provide some protection could be an added bonus.

“We know that [gonorrhea] is able to very quickly develop resistances to any antibiotics, so that was why we wanted to look beyond the antibiotic prophylaxis,” said Dr. Molina.

Among questions to explore looking ahead is the potential longevity of protection with the vaccine.

“We don’t know at this point how long the protection with the vaccine could last, or if [people] may need booster injections, for instance, but the literature suggests benefits for at least a year,” Dr. Molina said. “We are still monitoring the patients in the study to see what happens.”

He added that combination of the interventions may be of benefit.

“In the future, we think we may need to combine these approaches if we want to meet the WHO/UNAIDS targets to reduce the incidence of HIV and STIs by 90% by 2030.”

Commenting on the study, CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, noted that “gonorrhea develops resistance quickly and can be hard to treat or prophylaxis, so the vaccine finding, which was hinted at by previous observational data, is really important.”

He agrees that “the duration of protective efficacy – a big thing in vaccines – is unknown.”

“Still, this is really significant,” Dr. Myer stressed. “An efficacious vaccine against a stubborn sexually transmitted infection.”

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

The latest study to show high efficacy of doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) adds a new twist, showing – for the first time – reductions in gonorrhea among those receiving the meningococcal B vaccine.

“Among men who have sex with men on HIV PrEP, doxycycline PEP significantly reduced the incidence of chlamydia and syphilis and also had a significant impact on the incidence of gonorrhea,” said first author Jean-Michel Molina, MD, PhD, in presenting the findings at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

In addition, “two doses of the meningococcal B vaccine reduced the incidence of a first episode of gonorrhea by roughly 50% among men who have sex with men,” said Dr. Molina, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Paris, and head of the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis and Lariboisière Hospitals, Paris.

Whereas the advent of PrEP has been associated with significant reductions in HIV transmission, rates of STIs have conversely been on the rise among MSM, specifically among those receiving PrEP.

Post-exposure prophylaxis with Doxy PEP has been shown to reduce the incidence of chlamydia and syphilis by approximately 70%; however, effects on prevention of gonorrhea have been less clear.

Meningococcal B vaccination has, meanwhile, shown intriguing reductions of gonorrhea incidence of as much as 26%-46% in some observational studies.

Therefore, Dr. Molina and colleagues decided to further investigate Doxy PEP as well as the meningococcal B vaccine in prevention of STIs.

For the ANRS 174 DOXYVAC trial, they enrolled 546 MSM in the open-label, multicenter study between January 2021 and July 2022.

The men were randomly assigned to one of 4 groups: doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP: 200 mg; n = 332), no Doxy PEP (n = 170), two shots of meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB vaccine; n = 257), or no 4CMenB vaccine (n = 245).

All participants were assigned to their groups within 72 hours of condomless sex.

The men, who had a median age of 39, had a median time of PrEP use of 42 months, a history of an STI in the past year, and their median number of sexual partners in the past 3 months was 10.

Their characteristics were well-balanced across the treatment groups. After discontinuations of 54 patients across the groups, the final analysis included 502 participants.

With a median follow-up of 9 months, the intent-to-treat analysis showed 13 subjects had a first episode of chlamydia or syphilis in the Doxy PEP group, versus 49 subjects infected in the no Doxy PEP arm, for an incidence of 5.6 versus 35.4 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; P < .0001).

Infection specifically with chlamydia occurred among 21 men with no Doxy PEP versus 5 receiving Dox PEP (19.3 vs. 2.1 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.11; P < .0001).

And infection with syphilis occurred in 18 men receiving no Doxy PEP versus 8 receiving the treatment (16.3 vs. 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.21; P < .001).

The corresponding rates for gonorrhea infection were an incidence 41.3 versus 20.5 per 100 person-years, in the no Doxy PEP versus Doxy PEP arms, respectively (adjusted HR, 0.49; P = .001), and 29.4 versus 16.8 per 100 person-years for Mycoplasma genitalium infection (aHR, 0.55; P = .015).

Throughout the study, about 80% of patients in the Doxy PEP group reported using the prophylaxis treatment after their most recent sexual intercourse, with subjects reporting taking a median of seven pills per month.

In the vaccine/no vaccine comparisons, 32 subjects in the no meningococcal vaccine group were infected with a first gonorrhea infection, compared with 17 in the vaccine group, representing an incidence of 19.7 versus 9.8 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted HR, 0.49; P = .016), which Dr. Molina called “highly significant.”

An analysis of the cumulative incidence of gonorrhea infection with the meningococcal vaccine showed rates in the no vaccine versus vaccine groups of 30.4 versus 20.1 per 100 person-years, respectively; however, statistical significance was not reached (aHR, 0.66; P = .052).

Importantly, there were no significant interactions in the results between those receiving Doxy PEP or the 4CMenB vaccine group, and there were no significant differences in drug-related serious adverse events between the groups.

Dr. Molina noted that the meningococcal B vaccine is known to contain key antigens that are shared between meningitis and gonorrhea, which could explain the benefits.

Although chlamydia and syphilis thus far appear to remain susceptible to Doxy PEP, resistances with gonorrhea remain a concern, hence the ability of the vaccine to provide some protection could be an added bonus.

“We know that [gonorrhea] is able to very quickly develop resistances to any antibiotics, so that was why we wanted to look beyond the antibiotic prophylaxis,” said Dr. Molina.

Among questions to explore looking ahead is the potential longevity of protection with the vaccine.

“We don’t know at this point how long the protection with the vaccine could last, or if [people] may need booster injections, for instance, but the literature suggests benefits for at least a year,” Dr. Molina said. “We are still monitoring the patients in the study to see what happens.”

He added that combination of the interventions may be of benefit.

“In the future, we think we may need to combine these approaches if we want to meet the WHO/UNAIDS targets to reduce the incidence of HIV and STIs by 90% by 2030.”

Commenting on the study, CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, noted that “gonorrhea develops resistance quickly and can be hard to treat or prophylaxis, so the vaccine finding, which was hinted at by previous observational data, is really important.”

He agrees that “the duration of protective efficacy – a big thing in vaccines – is unknown.”

“Still, this is really significant,” Dr. Myer stressed. “An efficacious vaccine against a stubborn sexually transmitted infection.”

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

Warming U.S. temperatures, the resumption of travel, and new knowledge about Zika’s long-term effects on children signal that Zika prevention and vaccine development should be on public health officials’, doctors’, and communities’ radar, even when community infection is not occurring.

“Although we haven’t seen confirmed Zika virus circulation in the continental United States or its territories for several years, it’s still something that we are closely monitoring, particularly as we move into the summer months,” Erin Staples, MD, PhD, medical epidemiologist at the Arboviral Diseases Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colo., told this news organization.

“This is because cases are still being reported in other countries, particularly in South America. Travel to these places is increasing following the pandemic, leaving more potential for individuals who might have acquired the infection to come back and restart community transmission.”
 

How Zika might reemerge

The Aedes aegypti mosquito is the vector by which Zika spreads, and “during the COVID pandemic, these mosquitoes moved further north in the United States, into southern California, and were identified as far north as Washington, D.C.,” said Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“On a population level, Americans have essentially no immunity to Zika from prior infection, and there is no vaccine yet approved. If individuals infected with Zika came into a U.S. region where the Aedes aegypti mosquito was present, that population could be very susceptible to infection spread and even another outbreak. This would be a confluence of bad circumstances, but that’s exactly what infectious disease specialists continue to be watchful about, especially because Zika is so dangerous for fetuses,” said Dr. Silverman.
 

How the public can prepare

The CDC recommends that pregnant women or women who plan to become pregnant avoid traveling to regions where there are currently outbreaks of Zika, but this is not the only way that individuals can protect themselves.

“The message we want to deliver to people is that in the United States, people are at risk for several mosquito-borne diseases every summer beyond just Zika,” Dr. Staples said. “It’s really important that people are instructed to make a habit of wearing EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)–registered insect repellents when they go outside. Right now, that is the single best tool that we have to prevent mosquito-borne diseases in the U.S.

“From a community standpoint, there are several emerging mosquito control methods that are being evaluated right now, such as genetic modification and irradiation of mosquitoes. These methods are aimed at producing sterile mosquitoes that are released into the wild to mate with the local mosquito population, which will render them infertile. This leads, over time, to suppression of the overall Aedes aegypti mosquito population – the main vector of Zika transmission,” said Dr. Staples.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, encourages her patients to wear mosquito repellent but cautioned that “there’s no antiviral that you can take for Zika. Until we have a vaccine, the key to controlling/preventing Zika is controlling the mosquitoes that spread the virus.”
 

Vaccines

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is currently investigating a variety of Zika vaccines, including a DNA-based vaccine, (phase 2), a purified inactivated virus vaccine (phase 1), live attenuated vaccines (phase 2), and mRNA vaccines (phase 2).

“I’m most excited about mRNA vaccines because they help patients produce a lot of proteins. The protein from a typical protein-adjuvant vaccine will break down, and patients can only raise an immune response to whatever proteins are left. On the other hand, mRNA vaccines provide the body [with] a recipe to make the protein from the pathogen in high amounts, so that a strong immune response can be raised for protection,” noted Dr. Gandhi.

Moderna’s mRNA-1893 vaccine was recently studied in a randomized, observer-blind, controlled, phase 1 trial among 120 adults in the United States and Puerto Rico, the results of which were published online in The Lancet. “The vaccine was found to be generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events considered related to vaccine. Furthermore, the vaccine was able to generate a potent immune response that was capable of neutralizing the virus in vitro,” said Brett Leav, MD, executive director of clinical development for public health vaccines at Moderna.

“Our mRNA platform technology ... can be very helpful against emerging pandemic threats, as we saw in response to COVID-19. What is unique in our approach is that if the genetic sequence of the virus is known, we can quickly generate vaccines to test for their capability to generate a functional immune response. In the case of the mRNA-1893 trial, the vaccine was developed with antigens that were present in the strain of virus circulating in 2016, but we could easily match whatever strain reemerges,” said Dr. Leav.

A phase 2 trial to confirm the dose of mRNA-1893 in a larger study population is underway.

Although it’s been demonstrated that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine is safe and effective, moving from a phase 2 to a phase 3 study presents a challenge, given the fact that currently, the disease burden from Zika is low. If an outbreak were to occur in the future, these mRNA vaccines could potentially be given emergency approval, as occurred during the COVID pandemic, according to Dr. Silverman.

If approved, provisionally or through a traditional route, the vaccine would “accelerate the ability to tamp down any further outbreaks, because vaccine-based immunity could be made available to a large portion of the population who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy, not just in the U.S. but also in these endemic areas,” said Dr. Silverman.


 

Takeaways from the last Zika outbreak

Practical steps such as mosquito eradication and development of vaccines are not the only takeaway from the recent Zika epidemics inside and outside the United States. A clearer picture of the short- and long-term stakes of the disease has emerged.

According to the CDC, most people who become infected with Zika experience only mild symptoms, such as fever, rash, headache, and muscle pain, but babies conceived by mothers infected with Zika are at risk for stillbirth, miscarriage, and microcephaly and other brain defects.

Although a pregnant woman who tests positive for Zika is in a very high-risk situation, “data show that only about 30% of mothers with Zika have a baby with birth defects. If a pregnant woman contracted Zika, what would happen is we would just do very close screening by ultrasound of the fetus. If microcephaly in utero or fetal brain defects were observed, then a mother would be counseled on her options,” said Dr. Gandhi.

Dr. Silverman noted that “new data on children who were exposed in utero and had normal exams, including head measurements when they were born, have raised concerns. In recently published long-term follow-up studies, even when children born to mothers infected with Zika during pregnancy had normal head growth at least 3 years after birth, they were still at risk for neurodevelopmental delay and behavioral disorders, including impact on coordination and executive function.

“This is another good reason to keep the potential risks of Zika active in the public’s consciousness and in public health planning.”

Dr. Silverman, Dr. Gandhi, and Dr. Staples have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leav is an employee of Moderna and owns stock in the company.

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

Warming U.S. temperatures, the resumption of travel, and new knowledge about Zika’s long-term effects on children signal that Zika prevention and vaccine development should be on public health officials’, doctors’, and communities’ radar, even when community infection is not occurring.

“Although we haven’t seen confirmed Zika virus circulation in the continental United States or its territories for several years, it’s still something that we are closely monitoring, particularly as we move into the summer months,” Erin Staples, MD, PhD, medical epidemiologist at the Arboviral Diseases Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colo., told this news organization.

“This is because cases are still being reported in other countries, particularly in South America. Travel to these places is increasing following the pandemic, leaving more potential for individuals who might have acquired the infection to come back and restart community transmission.”
 

How Zika might reemerge

The Aedes aegypti mosquito is the vector by which Zika spreads, and “during the COVID pandemic, these mosquitoes moved further north in the United States, into southern California, and were identified as far north as Washington, D.C.,” said Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“On a population level, Americans have essentially no immunity to Zika from prior infection, and there is no vaccine yet approved. If individuals infected with Zika came into a U.S. region where the Aedes aegypti mosquito was present, that population could be very susceptible to infection spread and even another outbreak. This would be a confluence of bad circumstances, but that’s exactly what infectious disease specialists continue to be watchful about, especially because Zika is so dangerous for fetuses,” said Dr. Silverman.
 

How the public can prepare

The CDC recommends that pregnant women or women who plan to become pregnant avoid traveling to regions where there are currently outbreaks of Zika, but this is not the only way that individuals can protect themselves.

“The message we want to deliver to people is that in the United States, people are at risk for several mosquito-borne diseases every summer beyond just Zika,” Dr. Staples said. “It’s really important that people are instructed to make a habit of wearing EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)–registered insect repellents when they go outside. Right now, that is the single best tool that we have to prevent mosquito-borne diseases in the U.S.

“From a community standpoint, there are several emerging mosquito control methods that are being evaluated right now, such as genetic modification and irradiation of mosquitoes. These methods are aimed at producing sterile mosquitoes that are released into the wild to mate with the local mosquito population, which will render them infertile. This leads, over time, to suppression of the overall Aedes aegypti mosquito population – the main vector of Zika transmission,” said Dr. Staples.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, encourages her patients to wear mosquito repellent but cautioned that “there’s no antiviral that you can take for Zika. Until we have a vaccine, the key to controlling/preventing Zika is controlling the mosquitoes that spread the virus.”
 

Vaccines

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is currently investigating a variety of Zika vaccines, including a DNA-based vaccine, (phase 2), a purified inactivated virus vaccine (phase 1), live attenuated vaccines (phase 2), and mRNA vaccines (phase 2).

“I’m most excited about mRNA vaccines because they help patients produce a lot of proteins. The protein from a typical protein-adjuvant vaccine will break down, and patients can only raise an immune response to whatever proteins are left. On the other hand, mRNA vaccines provide the body [with] a recipe to make the protein from the pathogen in high amounts, so that a strong immune response can be raised for protection,” noted Dr. Gandhi.

Moderna’s mRNA-1893 vaccine was recently studied in a randomized, observer-blind, controlled, phase 1 trial among 120 adults in the United States and Puerto Rico, the results of which were published online in The Lancet. “The vaccine was found to be generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events considered related to vaccine. Furthermore, the vaccine was able to generate a potent immune response that was capable of neutralizing the virus in vitro,” said Brett Leav, MD, executive director of clinical development for public health vaccines at Moderna.

“Our mRNA platform technology ... can be very helpful against emerging pandemic threats, as we saw in response to COVID-19. What is unique in our approach is that if the genetic sequence of the virus is known, we can quickly generate vaccines to test for their capability to generate a functional immune response. In the case of the mRNA-1893 trial, the vaccine was developed with antigens that were present in the strain of virus circulating in 2016, but we could easily match whatever strain reemerges,” said Dr. Leav.

A phase 2 trial to confirm the dose of mRNA-1893 in a larger study population is underway.

Although it’s been demonstrated that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine is safe and effective, moving from a phase 2 to a phase 3 study presents a challenge, given the fact that currently, the disease burden from Zika is low. If an outbreak were to occur in the future, these mRNA vaccines could potentially be given emergency approval, as occurred during the COVID pandemic, according to Dr. Silverman.

If approved, provisionally or through a traditional route, the vaccine would “accelerate the ability to tamp down any further outbreaks, because vaccine-based immunity could be made available to a large portion of the population who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy, not just in the U.S. but also in these endemic areas,” said Dr. Silverman.


 

Takeaways from the last Zika outbreak

Practical steps such as mosquito eradication and development of vaccines are not the only takeaway from the recent Zika epidemics inside and outside the United States. A clearer picture of the short- and long-term stakes of the disease has emerged.

According to the CDC, most people who become infected with Zika experience only mild symptoms, such as fever, rash, headache, and muscle pain, but babies conceived by mothers infected with Zika are at risk for stillbirth, miscarriage, and microcephaly and other brain defects.

Although a pregnant woman who tests positive for Zika is in a very high-risk situation, “data show that only about 30% of mothers with Zika have a baby with birth defects. If a pregnant woman contracted Zika, what would happen is we would just do very close screening by ultrasound of the fetus. If microcephaly in utero or fetal brain defects were observed, then a mother would be counseled on her options,” said Dr. Gandhi.

Dr. Silverman noted that “new data on children who were exposed in utero and had normal exams, including head measurements when they were born, have raised concerns. In recently published long-term follow-up studies, even when children born to mothers infected with Zika during pregnancy had normal head growth at least 3 years after birth, they were still at risk for neurodevelopmental delay and behavioral disorders, including impact on coordination and executive function.

“This is another good reason to keep the potential risks of Zika active in the public’s consciousness and in public health planning.”

Dr. Silverman, Dr. Gandhi, and Dr. Staples have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leav is an employee of Moderna and owns stock in the company.

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

Warming U.S. temperatures, the resumption of travel, and new knowledge about Zika’s long-term effects on children signal that Zika prevention and vaccine development should be on public health officials’, doctors’, and communities’ radar, even when community infection is not occurring.

“Although we haven’t seen confirmed Zika virus circulation in the continental United States or its territories for several years, it’s still something that we are closely monitoring, particularly as we move into the summer months,” Erin Staples, MD, PhD, medical epidemiologist at the Arboviral Diseases Branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colo., told this news organization.

“This is because cases are still being reported in other countries, particularly in South America. Travel to these places is increasing following the pandemic, leaving more potential for individuals who might have acquired the infection to come back and restart community transmission.”
 

How Zika might reemerge

The Aedes aegypti mosquito is the vector by which Zika spreads, and “during the COVID pandemic, these mosquitoes moved further north in the United States, into southern California, and were identified as far north as Washington, D.C.,” said Neil Silverman, MD, professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Infections in Pregnancy Program at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“On a population level, Americans have essentially no immunity to Zika from prior infection, and there is no vaccine yet approved. If individuals infected with Zika came into a U.S. region where the Aedes aegypti mosquito was present, that population could be very susceptible to infection spread and even another outbreak. This would be a confluence of bad circumstances, but that’s exactly what infectious disease specialists continue to be watchful about, especially because Zika is so dangerous for fetuses,” said Dr. Silverman.
 

How the public can prepare

The CDC recommends that pregnant women or women who plan to become pregnant avoid traveling to regions where there are currently outbreaks of Zika, but this is not the only way that individuals can protect themselves.

“The message we want to deliver to people is that in the United States, people are at risk for several mosquito-borne diseases every summer beyond just Zika,” Dr. Staples said. “It’s really important that people are instructed to make a habit of wearing EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)–registered insect repellents when they go outside. Right now, that is the single best tool that we have to prevent mosquito-borne diseases in the U.S.

“From a community standpoint, there are several emerging mosquito control methods that are being evaluated right now, such as genetic modification and irradiation of mosquitoes. These methods are aimed at producing sterile mosquitoes that are released into the wild to mate with the local mosquito population, which will render them infertile. This leads, over time, to suppression of the overall Aedes aegypti mosquito population – the main vector of Zika transmission,” said Dr. Staples.

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and associate chief of the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, encourages her patients to wear mosquito repellent but cautioned that “there’s no antiviral that you can take for Zika. Until we have a vaccine, the key to controlling/preventing Zika is controlling the mosquitoes that spread the virus.”
 

Vaccines

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is currently investigating a variety of Zika vaccines, including a DNA-based vaccine, (phase 2), a purified inactivated virus vaccine (phase 1), live attenuated vaccines (phase 2), and mRNA vaccines (phase 2).

“I’m most excited about mRNA vaccines because they help patients produce a lot of proteins. The protein from a typical protein-adjuvant vaccine will break down, and patients can only raise an immune response to whatever proteins are left. On the other hand, mRNA vaccines provide the body [with] a recipe to make the protein from the pathogen in high amounts, so that a strong immune response can be raised for protection,” noted Dr. Gandhi.

Moderna’s mRNA-1893 vaccine was recently studied in a randomized, observer-blind, controlled, phase 1 trial among 120 adults in the United States and Puerto Rico, the results of which were published online in The Lancet. “The vaccine was found to be generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events considered related to vaccine. Furthermore, the vaccine was able to generate a potent immune response that was capable of neutralizing the virus in vitro,” said Brett Leav, MD, executive director of clinical development for public health vaccines at Moderna.

“Our mRNA platform technology ... can be very helpful against emerging pandemic threats, as we saw in response to COVID-19. What is unique in our approach is that if the genetic sequence of the virus is known, we can quickly generate vaccines to test for their capability to generate a functional immune response. In the case of the mRNA-1893 trial, the vaccine was developed with antigens that were present in the strain of virus circulating in 2016, but we could easily match whatever strain reemerges,” said Dr. Leav.

A phase 2 trial to confirm the dose of mRNA-1893 in a larger study population is underway.

Although it’s been demonstrated that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine is safe and effective, moving from a phase 2 to a phase 3 study presents a challenge, given the fact that currently, the disease burden from Zika is low. If an outbreak were to occur in the future, these mRNA vaccines could potentially be given emergency approval, as occurred during the COVID pandemic, according to Dr. Silverman.

If approved, provisionally or through a traditional route, the vaccine would “accelerate the ability to tamp down any further outbreaks, because vaccine-based immunity could be made available to a large portion of the population who were pregnant or planning a pregnancy, not just in the U.S. but also in these endemic areas,” said Dr. Silverman.


 

Takeaways from the last Zika outbreak

Practical steps such as mosquito eradication and development of vaccines are not the only takeaway from the recent Zika epidemics inside and outside the United States. A clearer picture of the short- and long-term stakes of the disease has emerged.

According to the CDC, most people who become infected with Zika experience only mild symptoms, such as fever, rash, headache, and muscle pain, but babies conceived by mothers infected with Zika are at risk for stillbirth, miscarriage, and microcephaly and other brain defects.

Although a pregnant woman who tests positive for Zika is in a very high-risk situation, “data show that only about 30% of mothers with Zika have a baby with birth defects. If a pregnant woman contracted Zika, what would happen is we would just do very close screening by ultrasound of the fetus. If microcephaly in utero or fetal brain defects were observed, then a mother would be counseled on her options,” said Dr. Gandhi.

Dr. Silverman noted that “new data on children who were exposed in utero and had normal exams, including head measurements when they were born, have raised concerns. In recently published long-term follow-up studies, even when children born to mothers infected with Zika during pregnancy had normal head growth at least 3 years after birth, they were still at risk for neurodevelopmental delay and behavioral disorders, including impact on coordination and executive function.

“This is another good reason to keep the potential risks of Zika active in the public’s consciousness and in public health planning.”

Dr. Silverman, Dr. Gandhi, and Dr. Staples have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leav is an employee of Moderna and owns stock in the company.

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

A new study shows the Pfizer vaccine is safe and highly effective against COVID-19 in children as young as 6 months old.

A three-dose series of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was 73% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in children aged 6 months to 4 years, the researchers found. They also found that an examination of reactions and safety results “did not suggest any concerns.”

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 1,776 children aged 6 months to 2 years old, and 2,750 children aged 2-4 years. Children were randomly assigned to receive either the three-shot series of the Pfizer vaccine or placebo shots. Participants received the first dose of the vaccine by March 31, 2022, and lived in Brazil, Finland, Poland, Spain, or the United States.

The authors wrote that having safe and effective COVID vaccines for young children is important to protect them from hospitalization or death and because young children play a role in spreading highly transmissible variants of the virus. COVID hospitalizations for children under 5 years old peaked at a rate of 14.5 per 100,000 in January 2022, the authors wrote, noting that the Omicron virus variant appeared to affect young children more severely than the previous variant, Delta.

When the researchers evaluated vaccine effectiveness by age group, they found that it prevented symptomatic COVID in 75.8% of children aged 6 months to 2 years, and in 71.8% of children aged 2-4 years.

Less than 0.5% of participants reported severe reactions to the vaccine. The most common reactions reported were tenderness or pain. Reactions typically appeared within the first couple days following vaccine administration and resolved within 2 days. No cases of inflammation of the heart muscle or its lining were reported among participants.

Uptake of COVID vaccines for young children has been lower than other age groups in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 10% of children younger than 5 have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 5% have completed a primary vaccine series.

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

A new study shows the Pfizer vaccine is safe and highly effective against COVID-19 in children as young as 6 months old.

A three-dose series of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was 73% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in children aged 6 months to 4 years, the researchers found. They also found that an examination of reactions and safety results “did not suggest any concerns.”

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 1,776 children aged 6 months to 2 years old, and 2,750 children aged 2-4 years. Children were randomly assigned to receive either the three-shot series of the Pfizer vaccine or placebo shots. Participants received the first dose of the vaccine by March 31, 2022, and lived in Brazil, Finland, Poland, Spain, or the United States.

The authors wrote that having safe and effective COVID vaccines for young children is important to protect them from hospitalization or death and because young children play a role in spreading highly transmissible variants of the virus. COVID hospitalizations for children under 5 years old peaked at a rate of 14.5 per 100,000 in January 2022, the authors wrote, noting that the Omicron virus variant appeared to affect young children more severely than the previous variant, Delta.

When the researchers evaluated vaccine effectiveness by age group, they found that it prevented symptomatic COVID in 75.8% of children aged 6 months to 2 years, and in 71.8% of children aged 2-4 years.

Less than 0.5% of participants reported severe reactions to the vaccine. The most common reactions reported were tenderness or pain. Reactions typically appeared within the first couple days following vaccine administration and resolved within 2 days. No cases of inflammation of the heart muscle or its lining were reported among participants.

Uptake of COVID vaccines for young children has been lower than other age groups in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 10% of children younger than 5 have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 5% have completed a primary vaccine series.

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

A new study shows the Pfizer vaccine is safe and highly effective against COVID-19 in children as young as 6 months old.

A three-dose series of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was 73% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in children aged 6 months to 4 years, the researchers found. They also found that an examination of reactions and safety results “did not suggest any concerns.”

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, included 1,776 children aged 6 months to 2 years old, and 2,750 children aged 2-4 years. Children were randomly assigned to receive either the three-shot series of the Pfizer vaccine or placebo shots. Participants received the first dose of the vaccine by March 31, 2022, and lived in Brazil, Finland, Poland, Spain, or the United States.

The authors wrote that having safe and effective COVID vaccines for young children is important to protect them from hospitalization or death and because young children play a role in spreading highly transmissible variants of the virus. COVID hospitalizations for children under 5 years old peaked at a rate of 14.5 per 100,000 in January 2022, the authors wrote, noting that the Omicron virus variant appeared to affect young children more severely than the previous variant, Delta.

When the researchers evaluated vaccine effectiveness by age group, they found that it prevented symptomatic COVID in 75.8% of children aged 6 months to 2 years, and in 71.8% of children aged 2-4 years.

Less than 0.5% of participants reported severe reactions to the vaccine. The most common reactions reported were tenderness or pain. Reactions typically appeared within the first couple days following vaccine administration and resolved within 2 days. No cases of inflammation of the heart muscle or its lining were reported among participants.

Uptake of COVID vaccines for young children has been lower than other age groups in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 10% of children younger than 5 have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 5% have completed a primary vaccine series.

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

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

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

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

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

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

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