A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Kidney transplantation has recently been happening at a record pace and with unprecedented success despite patients having more risk factors than ever before.

HYWARDS/Thinkstock

During 2016-2019, U.S. centers performed kidney transplants in nearly 77,000 patients, a jump of almost 25% compared with 4-year averages of about 62,000 patients throughout 2004-2015. That works out to about 15,000 more patients receiving donor kidneys, Sundaram Hariharan, MD, and associates reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in a review of all U.S. renal transplantations performed during 1996-2019.

Coupled with the volume uptick during this 24-year period were new lows in graft losses and patient deaths. By 2018, mortality during the first year following transplantation occurred at about a 1% rate among patients who had received a kidney from a living donor, and at about a 3% rate when the organ came from a deceased donor, nearly half the rate of 2 decades earlier, in 1996. Rates of first-year graft loss during 2017 were also about half of what they had been in 1996, occurring in about 2% of patients who received a living donor organ and in about 6% of those who got a kidney from a deceased donor during 2017.

“Twenty years ago, kidney transplantation was the preferred option compared with dialysis, and even more so now,” summed up Dr. Hariharan, a senior transplant nephrologist and professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and first author of the report. Kidney transplantation survival at U.S. centers “improved steadily over the past 24 years, despite patient variables becoming worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Kidney recipients are older, more obese, and have more prevalent diabetes

During the period studied, kidney transplant recipients became on average older and more obese, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes; the age of organ donors grew as well. The prevalence of diabetes among patients who received a kidney from a deceased donor increased from 24% during 1996-1999 to 36% during 2016-2019, while diabetes prevalence among recipients of an organ from a living donor rose from 25% in 1996-1999 to 29% during 2016-2019.

The improved graft and patient survival numbers “are very encouraging trends,” said Michelle A. Josephson, MD, professor and medical director of kidney transplantation at the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the report. “We have been hearing for a number of years that short-term graft survival had improved, but I’m thrilled to learn that long-term survival has also improved.”

The report documented 10-year survival of graft recipients during 2008-2011 of 67%, up from 61% during 1996-1999, and a 10-year overall graft survival rate of 54% in the 2008-2011 cohort, an improvement from the 42% rate in patients who received their organs in 1996-1999, changes Dr. Hariharan characterized as “modest.”

These improvements in long-term graft and patient survival are “meaningful, and particularly notable that outcomes improved despite increased complexity of the transplant population,” said Krista L. Lentine, MD, PhD, professor and medical director of living donation at Saint Louis University. But “despite these improvements, long-term graft survival remains limited,” she cautioned, especially because of risks for substantial complications from chronic immunosuppressive treatment including infection, cancer, glucose intolerance, and dyslipidemia.

The analysis reported by Dr. Hariharan and his associates used data collected by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Patients, run under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has tracked all patients who have had kidney transplants at U.S. centers since the late 1980s, said Dr. Hariharan. The database included just over 362,000 total transplants during the 24-year period studied, with 36% of all transplants involving organs from living donors with the remaining patients receiving kidneys from deceased donors.

Living donations still stagnant; deceased-donor kidneys rise

The data showed that the rate of transplants from living donors was stagnant for 2 decades, with 22,525 patients transplanted during 2000-2003, and 23,746 transplanted during 2016-2019, with very similar rates during the intervening years. The recent spurt in transplants during 2016-2019 compared with the preceding decade depended almost entirely on kidneys from deceased donors. This rate jumped from the steady, slow rise it showed during 1996-2015, when deceased-donor transplants rose from about 30,000 during 1996-1999 to about 41,000 during 2012-2015, to a more dramatic increase of about 12,000 additional transplants during the most recent period, adding up to a total of more than 53,000 transplants from deceased donors during 2016-2019.

“I strongly recommend organs from living donors” when feasible, said Dr. Hariharan. “At some centers, a high proportion of transplants use living donors, but not at other centers,” he said.

It’s unknown why transplants using organs from deceased donors has shown this growth, but Dr. Hariharan suggested a multifactorial explanation. Those factors include growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease who require dialysis, increased numbers of patients listed for kidney transplant, new approaches that allow organs from older donors and those infected with pathogens such as hepatitis C virus or HIV, greater numbers of people and families agreeing to donate organs, and possibly the opioid crisis that may have led to increased organ donation. The number of U.S. centers performing kidney transplants rose from fewer than 200 about a quarter of a century ago to about 250 today, he added.

‘Immuno Bill’ guarantees Medicare coverage for immunosuppression

Dr. Hariharan voiced optimism that graft and patient survival rates will continue to improve going forward. One factor will likely be the passage in late 2020 of the “Immuno Bill” by the U.S. Congress, which among other things mandated ongoing coverage starting in 2023 for immunosuppressive drugs for all Medicare beneficiaries with a kidney transplant. Until then, Medicare provides coverage for only 36 months, a time limit that has resulted in nearly 400 kidney recipients annually losing coverage of their immunosuppression medications.

Dr. Hariharan and coauthors called the existing potential for discontinuation of immunosuppressive drug an “unnecessary impediment to long-term survival for which patients and society paid a heavy price.”

“Kidney transplantation, especially from living donors, offers patients with kidney failure the best chance for long-term survival and improved quality of life, with lower cost to the health care system,” Dr. Lentine said in an interview. Despite the many positive trends detailed in the report from Dr. Hariharan and coauthors, “the vast majority of the more than 700,000 people in the United States with kidney failure will not have an opportunity to receive a transplant due to limitations in organ supply.” And many patients who receive a kidney transplant eventually must resume dialysis because of “limited long-term graft survival resulting from allograft nephropathy, recurrent native disease, medication nonadherence, or other causes.” Plus many potentially transplantable organs go unused.

Dr. Lentine cited a position statement issued in July 2021 by the National Kidney Foundation that made several recommendations on how to improve access to kidney transplants and improve outcomes. “Expanding opportunities for safe living donation, eliminating racial disparities in living-donor access, improving wait-list access and transport readiness, maximizing use of deceased-donor organs, and extending graft longevity are critical priorities,” said Dr. Lentine, lead author on the statement.

“For many or even most patients with kidney failure transplantation is the optimal form of renal replacement. The better recent outcomes and evolving management strategies make transplantation an even more attractive option,” said Dr. Josephson. Improved outcomes among U.S. transplant patients also highlights the “importance of increasing access to kidney transplantation” for all people with kidney failure who could benefit from this treatment, she added.

Dr. Hariharan and Dr. Lentine had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to UCB and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Kidney transplantation has recently been happening at a record pace and with unprecedented success despite patients having more risk factors than ever before.

HYWARDS/Thinkstock

During 2016-2019, U.S. centers performed kidney transplants in nearly 77,000 patients, a jump of almost 25% compared with 4-year averages of about 62,000 patients throughout 2004-2015. That works out to about 15,000 more patients receiving donor kidneys, Sundaram Hariharan, MD, and associates reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in a review of all U.S. renal transplantations performed during 1996-2019.

Coupled with the volume uptick during this 24-year period were new lows in graft losses and patient deaths. By 2018, mortality during the first year following transplantation occurred at about a 1% rate among patients who had received a kidney from a living donor, and at about a 3% rate when the organ came from a deceased donor, nearly half the rate of 2 decades earlier, in 1996. Rates of first-year graft loss during 2017 were also about half of what they had been in 1996, occurring in about 2% of patients who received a living donor organ and in about 6% of those who got a kidney from a deceased donor during 2017.

“Twenty years ago, kidney transplantation was the preferred option compared with dialysis, and even more so now,” summed up Dr. Hariharan, a senior transplant nephrologist and professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and first author of the report. Kidney transplantation survival at U.S. centers “improved steadily over the past 24 years, despite patient variables becoming worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Kidney recipients are older, more obese, and have more prevalent diabetes

During the period studied, kidney transplant recipients became on average older and more obese, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes; the age of organ donors grew as well. The prevalence of diabetes among patients who received a kidney from a deceased donor increased from 24% during 1996-1999 to 36% during 2016-2019, while diabetes prevalence among recipients of an organ from a living donor rose from 25% in 1996-1999 to 29% during 2016-2019.

The improved graft and patient survival numbers “are very encouraging trends,” said Michelle A. Josephson, MD, professor and medical director of kidney transplantation at the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the report. “We have been hearing for a number of years that short-term graft survival had improved, but I’m thrilled to learn that long-term survival has also improved.”

The report documented 10-year survival of graft recipients during 2008-2011 of 67%, up from 61% during 1996-1999, and a 10-year overall graft survival rate of 54% in the 2008-2011 cohort, an improvement from the 42% rate in patients who received their organs in 1996-1999, changes Dr. Hariharan characterized as “modest.”

These improvements in long-term graft and patient survival are “meaningful, and particularly notable that outcomes improved despite increased complexity of the transplant population,” said Krista L. Lentine, MD, PhD, professor and medical director of living donation at Saint Louis University. But “despite these improvements, long-term graft survival remains limited,” she cautioned, especially because of risks for substantial complications from chronic immunosuppressive treatment including infection, cancer, glucose intolerance, and dyslipidemia.

The analysis reported by Dr. Hariharan and his associates used data collected by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Patients, run under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has tracked all patients who have had kidney transplants at U.S. centers since the late 1980s, said Dr. Hariharan. The database included just over 362,000 total transplants during the 24-year period studied, with 36% of all transplants involving organs from living donors with the remaining patients receiving kidneys from deceased donors.

Living donations still stagnant; deceased-donor kidneys rise

The data showed that the rate of transplants from living donors was stagnant for 2 decades, with 22,525 patients transplanted during 2000-2003, and 23,746 transplanted during 2016-2019, with very similar rates during the intervening years. The recent spurt in transplants during 2016-2019 compared with the preceding decade depended almost entirely on kidneys from deceased donors. This rate jumped from the steady, slow rise it showed during 1996-2015, when deceased-donor transplants rose from about 30,000 during 1996-1999 to about 41,000 during 2012-2015, to a more dramatic increase of about 12,000 additional transplants during the most recent period, adding up to a total of more than 53,000 transplants from deceased donors during 2016-2019.

“I strongly recommend organs from living donors” when feasible, said Dr. Hariharan. “At some centers, a high proportion of transplants use living donors, but not at other centers,” he said.

It’s unknown why transplants using organs from deceased donors has shown this growth, but Dr. Hariharan suggested a multifactorial explanation. Those factors include growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease who require dialysis, increased numbers of patients listed for kidney transplant, new approaches that allow organs from older donors and those infected with pathogens such as hepatitis C virus or HIV, greater numbers of people and families agreeing to donate organs, and possibly the opioid crisis that may have led to increased organ donation. The number of U.S. centers performing kidney transplants rose from fewer than 200 about a quarter of a century ago to about 250 today, he added.

‘Immuno Bill’ guarantees Medicare coverage for immunosuppression

Dr. Hariharan voiced optimism that graft and patient survival rates will continue to improve going forward. One factor will likely be the passage in late 2020 of the “Immuno Bill” by the U.S. Congress, which among other things mandated ongoing coverage starting in 2023 for immunosuppressive drugs for all Medicare beneficiaries with a kidney transplant. Until then, Medicare provides coverage for only 36 months, a time limit that has resulted in nearly 400 kidney recipients annually losing coverage of their immunosuppression medications.

Dr. Hariharan and coauthors called the existing potential for discontinuation of immunosuppressive drug an “unnecessary impediment to long-term survival for which patients and society paid a heavy price.”

“Kidney transplantation, especially from living donors, offers patients with kidney failure the best chance for long-term survival and improved quality of life, with lower cost to the health care system,” Dr. Lentine said in an interview. Despite the many positive trends detailed in the report from Dr. Hariharan and coauthors, “the vast majority of the more than 700,000 people in the United States with kidney failure will not have an opportunity to receive a transplant due to limitations in organ supply.” And many patients who receive a kidney transplant eventually must resume dialysis because of “limited long-term graft survival resulting from allograft nephropathy, recurrent native disease, medication nonadherence, or other causes.” Plus many potentially transplantable organs go unused.

Dr. Lentine cited a position statement issued in July 2021 by the National Kidney Foundation that made several recommendations on how to improve access to kidney transplants and improve outcomes. “Expanding opportunities for safe living donation, eliminating racial disparities in living-donor access, improving wait-list access and transport readiness, maximizing use of deceased-donor organs, and extending graft longevity are critical priorities,” said Dr. Lentine, lead author on the statement.

“For many or even most patients with kidney failure transplantation is the optimal form of renal replacement. The better recent outcomes and evolving management strategies make transplantation an even more attractive option,” said Dr. Josephson. Improved outcomes among U.S. transplant patients also highlights the “importance of increasing access to kidney transplantation” for all people with kidney failure who could benefit from this treatment, she added.

Dr. Hariharan and Dr. Lentine had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to UCB and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Kidney transplantation has recently been happening at a record pace and with unprecedented success despite patients having more risk factors than ever before.

HYWARDS/Thinkstock

During 2016-2019, U.S. centers performed kidney transplants in nearly 77,000 patients, a jump of almost 25% compared with 4-year averages of about 62,000 patients throughout 2004-2015. That works out to about 15,000 more patients receiving donor kidneys, Sundaram Hariharan, MD, and associates reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in a review of all U.S. renal transplantations performed during 1996-2019.

Coupled with the volume uptick during this 24-year period were new lows in graft losses and patient deaths. By 2018, mortality during the first year following transplantation occurred at about a 1% rate among patients who had received a kidney from a living donor, and at about a 3% rate when the organ came from a deceased donor, nearly half the rate of 2 decades earlier, in 1996. Rates of first-year graft loss during 2017 were also about half of what they had been in 1996, occurring in about 2% of patients who received a living donor organ and in about 6% of those who got a kidney from a deceased donor during 2017.

“Twenty years ago, kidney transplantation was the preferred option compared with dialysis, and even more so now,” summed up Dr. Hariharan, a senior transplant nephrologist and professor of medicine and surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and first author of the report. Kidney transplantation survival at U.S. centers “improved steadily over the past 24 years, despite patient variables becoming worse,” he said in an interview.
 

Kidney recipients are older, more obese, and have more prevalent diabetes

During the period studied, kidney transplant recipients became on average older and more obese, and had a higher prevalence of diabetes; the age of organ donors grew as well. The prevalence of diabetes among patients who received a kidney from a deceased donor increased from 24% during 1996-1999 to 36% during 2016-2019, while diabetes prevalence among recipients of an organ from a living donor rose from 25% in 1996-1999 to 29% during 2016-2019.

The improved graft and patient survival numbers “are very encouraging trends,” said Michelle A. Josephson, MD, professor and medical director of kidney transplantation at the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the report. “We have been hearing for a number of years that short-term graft survival had improved, but I’m thrilled to learn that long-term survival has also improved.”

The report documented 10-year survival of graft recipients during 2008-2011 of 67%, up from 61% during 1996-1999, and a 10-year overall graft survival rate of 54% in the 2008-2011 cohort, an improvement from the 42% rate in patients who received their organs in 1996-1999, changes Dr. Hariharan characterized as “modest.”

These improvements in long-term graft and patient survival are “meaningful, and particularly notable that outcomes improved despite increased complexity of the transplant population,” said Krista L. Lentine, MD, PhD, professor and medical director of living donation at Saint Louis University. But “despite these improvements, long-term graft survival remains limited,” she cautioned, especially because of risks for substantial complications from chronic immunosuppressive treatment including infection, cancer, glucose intolerance, and dyslipidemia.

The analysis reported by Dr. Hariharan and his associates used data collected by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Patients, run under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has tracked all patients who have had kidney transplants at U.S. centers since the late 1980s, said Dr. Hariharan. The database included just over 362,000 total transplants during the 24-year period studied, with 36% of all transplants involving organs from living donors with the remaining patients receiving kidneys from deceased donors.

Living donations still stagnant; deceased-donor kidneys rise

The data showed that the rate of transplants from living donors was stagnant for 2 decades, with 22,525 patients transplanted during 2000-2003, and 23,746 transplanted during 2016-2019, with very similar rates during the intervening years. The recent spurt in transplants during 2016-2019 compared with the preceding decade depended almost entirely on kidneys from deceased donors. This rate jumped from the steady, slow rise it showed during 1996-2015, when deceased-donor transplants rose from about 30,000 during 1996-1999 to about 41,000 during 2012-2015, to a more dramatic increase of about 12,000 additional transplants during the most recent period, adding up to a total of more than 53,000 transplants from deceased donors during 2016-2019.

“I strongly recommend organs from living donors” when feasible, said Dr. Hariharan. “At some centers, a high proportion of transplants use living donors, but not at other centers,” he said.

It’s unknown why transplants using organs from deceased donors has shown this growth, but Dr. Hariharan suggested a multifactorial explanation. Those factors include growth in the number of patients with end-stage renal disease who require dialysis, increased numbers of patients listed for kidney transplant, new approaches that allow organs from older donors and those infected with pathogens such as hepatitis C virus or HIV, greater numbers of people and families agreeing to donate organs, and possibly the opioid crisis that may have led to increased organ donation. The number of U.S. centers performing kidney transplants rose from fewer than 200 about a quarter of a century ago to about 250 today, he added.

‘Immuno Bill’ guarantees Medicare coverage for immunosuppression

Dr. Hariharan voiced optimism that graft and patient survival rates will continue to improve going forward. One factor will likely be the passage in late 2020 of the “Immuno Bill” by the U.S. Congress, which among other things mandated ongoing coverage starting in 2023 for immunosuppressive drugs for all Medicare beneficiaries with a kidney transplant. Until then, Medicare provides coverage for only 36 months, a time limit that has resulted in nearly 400 kidney recipients annually losing coverage of their immunosuppression medications.

Dr. Hariharan and coauthors called the existing potential for discontinuation of immunosuppressive drug an “unnecessary impediment to long-term survival for which patients and society paid a heavy price.”

“Kidney transplantation, especially from living donors, offers patients with kidney failure the best chance for long-term survival and improved quality of life, with lower cost to the health care system,” Dr. Lentine said in an interview. Despite the many positive trends detailed in the report from Dr. Hariharan and coauthors, “the vast majority of the more than 700,000 people in the United States with kidney failure will not have an opportunity to receive a transplant due to limitations in organ supply.” And many patients who receive a kidney transplant eventually must resume dialysis because of “limited long-term graft survival resulting from allograft nephropathy, recurrent native disease, medication nonadherence, or other causes.” Plus many potentially transplantable organs go unused.

Dr. Lentine cited a position statement issued in July 2021 by the National Kidney Foundation that made several recommendations on how to improve access to kidney transplants and improve outcomes. “Expanding opportunities for safe living donation, eliminating racial disparities in living-donor access, improving wait-list access and transport readiness, maximizing use of deceased-donor organs, and extending graft longevity are critical priorities,” said Dr. Lentine, lead author on the statement.

“For many or even most patients with kidney failure transplantation is the optimal form of renal replacement. The better recent outcomes and evolving management strategies make transplantation an even more attractive option,” said Dr. Josephson. Improved outcomes among U.S. transplant patients also highlights the “importance of increasing access to kidney transplantation” for all people with kidney failure who could benefit from this treatment, she added.

Dr. Hariharan and Dr. Lentine had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to UCB and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The prevalence of youth-onset diabetes in the United States rose significantly from 2001 to 2017, with rates of type 2 diabetes climbing disproportionately among racial/ethnic minorities, according to investigators.

In individuals aged 19 years or younger, prevalence rates of type 1 and type 2 diabetes increased 45.1% and 95.3%, respectively, reported lead author Jean M. Lawrence, ScD, MPH, MSSA, program director of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolic diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“Elucidating differences in diabetes prevalence trends by diabetes type and demographic characteristics is essential to describe the burden of disease and to estimate current and future resource needs,” Dr. Lawrence and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The retrospective analysis was a part of the ongoing SEARCH study, which includes data from individuals in six areas across the United States: Colorado, California, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington state, and Arizona/New Mexico (Indian Health Services). In the present report, three prevalence years were evaluated: 2001, 2009, and 2017. For each year, approximately 3.5 million youths were included. Findings were reported in terms of diabetes type, race/ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and sex.

Absolute prevalence of type 1 diabetes per 1,000 youths increased from 1.48 in 2001, to 1.93 in 2009, and finally 2.15 in 2017. Across the 16-year period, this represents an absolute increase of 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.70), and a relative increase of 45.1% (95% CI, 40.0%-50.4%). In absolute terms, prevalence increased most among non-Hispanic White (0.93 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic Black (0.89 per 1,000) youths.

While type 2 diabetes was comparatively less common than type 1 diabetes, absolute prevalence per 1,000 youths increased to a greater degree, rising from 0.34 in 2001 to 0.46 in 2009 and to 0.67 in 2017. This amounts to relative increase across the period of 95.3% (95% CI, 77.0%-115.4%). Absolute increases were disproportionate among racial/ethnic minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic youths, who had absolute increases per 1,000 youths of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.97) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51-0.64), respectively, compared with 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03-0.07) for White youths.

“Increases [among Black and Hispanic youths] were not linear,” the investigators noted. “Hispanic youths had a significantly greater increase in the first interval compared with the second interval, while Black youths had no significant increase in the first interval and a significant increase in the second interval.”

Dr. Lawrence and colleagues offered several possible factors driving these trends in type 2 diabetes.

“Changes in anthropometric risk factors appear to play a significant role,” they wrote, noting that “Black and Mexican American teenagers experienced the greatest increase in prevalence of obesity/severe obesity from 1999 to 2018, which may contribute to race and ethnicity differences. Other contributing factors may include increases in exposure to maternal obesity and diabetes (gestational and type 2 diabetes) and exposure to environmental chemicals.”

According to Megan Kelsey, MD, associate professor of pediatric endocrinology, director of lifestyle medicine endocrinology, and medical director of the bariatric surgery center at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, the increased rates of type 2 diabetes reported by the study are alarming, yet they pale in comparison with what’s been happening since the pandemic began.

“Individual institutions have reported anywhere between a 50% – which is basically what we’re seeing at our hospital – to a 300% increase in new diagnoses [of type 2 diabetes] in a single-year time period,” Dr. Kelsey said in an interview. “So what is reported [in the present study] doesn’t even get at what’s been going on over the past year and a half.”

Dr. Kelsey offered some speculative drivers of this recent surge in cases, including stress, weight gain caused by sedentary behavior and more access to food, and the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 may infect pancreatic islet beta cells, thereby interfering with insulin production.

Type 2 diabetes is particularly concerning among young people, Dr. Kelsey noted, as it is more challenging to manage than adult-onset disease.

Young patients “also develop complications much sooner than you’d expect,” she added. “So we really need to understand why these rates are increasing, how we can identify kids at risk, and how we can better prevent it, so we aren’t stuck with a disease that’s really difficult to treat.”

To this end, the NIH recently opened applications for investigators to participate in a prospective longitudinal study of youth-onset type 2 diabetes. Young people at risk of diabetes will be followed through puberty, a period of increased risk, according to Dr. Kelsey.

“The goal will be to take kids who don’t yet have [type 2] diabetes, but are at risk, and try to better understand, as some of them progress to developing diabetes, what is going on,” Dr. Kelsey said. “What are other factors that we can use to better predict who’s going to develop diabetes? And can we use the information from this [upcoming] study to understand how to better prevent it? Because nothing that has been tried so far has worked.”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIDDK, and others. The investigators and Dr. Kelsey reported no conflicts of interest.

The prevalence of youth-onset diabetes in the United States rose significantly from 2001 to 2017, with rates of type 2 diabetes climbing disproportionately among racial/ethnic minorities, according to investigators.

In individuals aged 19 years or younger, prevalence rates of type 1 and type 2 diabetes increased 45.1% and 95.3%, respectively, reported lead author Jean M. Lawrence, ScD, MPH, MSSA, program director of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolic diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“Elucidating differences in diabetes prevalence trends by diabetes type and demographic characteristics is essential to describe the burden of disease and to estimate current and future resource needs,” Dr. Lawrence and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The retrospective analysis was a part of the ongoing SEARCH study, which includes data from individuals in six areas across the United States: Colorado, California, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington state, and Arizona/New Mexico (Indian Health Services). In the present report, three prevalence years were evaluated: 2001, 2009, and 2017. For each year, approximately 3.5 million youths were included. Findings were reported in terms of diabetes type, race/ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and sex.

Absolute prevalence of type 1 diabetes per 1,000 youths increased from 1.48 in 2001, to 1.93 in 2009, and finally 2.15 in 2017. Across the 16-year period, this represents an absolute increase of 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.70), and a relative increase of 45.1% (95% CI, 40.0%-50.4%). In absolute terms, prevalence increased most among non-Hispanic White (0.93 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic Black (0.89 per 1,000) youths.

While type 2 diabetes was comparatively less common than type 1 diabetes, absolute prevalence per 1,000 youths increased to a greater degree, rising from 0.34 in 2001 to 0.46 in 2009 and to 0.67 in 2017. This amounts to relative increase across the period of 95.3% (95% CI, 77.0%-115.4%). Absolute increases were disproportionate among racial/ethnic minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic youths, who had absolute increases per 1,000 youths of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.97) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51-0.64), respectively, compared with 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03-0.07) for White youths.

“Increases [among Black and Hispanic youths] were not linear,” the investigators noted. “Hispanic youths had a significantly greater increase in the first interval compared with the second interval, while Black youths had no significant increase in the first interval and a significant increase in the second interval.”

Dr. Lawrence and colleagues offered several possible factors driving these trends in type 2 diabetes.

“Changes in anthropometric risk factors appear to play a significant role,” they wrote, noting that “Black and Mexican American teenagers experienced the greatest increase in prevalence of obesity/severe obesity from 1999 to 2018, which may contribute to race and ethnicity differences. Other contributing factors may include increases in exposure to maternal obesity and diabetes (gestational and type 2 diabetes) and exposure to environmental chemicals.”

According to Megan Kelsey, MD, associate professor of pediatric endocrinology, director of lifestyle medicine endocrinology, and medical director of the bariatric surgery center at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, the increased rates of type 2 diabetes reported by the study are alarming, yet they pale in comparison with what’s been happening since the pandemic began.

“Individual institutions have reported anywhere between a 50% – which is basically what we’re seeing at our hospital – to a 300% increase in new diagnoses [of type 2 diabetes] in a single-year time period,” Dr. Kelsey said in an interview. “So what is reported [in the present study] doesn’t even get at what’s been going on over the past year and a half.”

Dr. Kelsey offered some speculative drivers of this recent surge in cases, including stress, weight gain caused by sedentary behavior and more access to food, and the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 may infect pancreatic islet beta cells, thereby interfering with insulin production.

Type 2 diabetes is particularly concerning among young people, Dr. Kelsey noted, as it is more challenging to manage than adult-onset disease.

Young patients “also develop complications much sooner than you’d expect,” she added. “So we really need to understand why these rates are increasing, how we can identify kids at risk, and how we can better prevent it, so we aren’t stuck with a disease that’s really difficult to treat.”

To this end, the NIH recently opened applications for investigators to participate in a prospective longitudinal study of youth-onset type 2 diabetes. Young people at risk of diabetes will be followed through puberty, a period of increased risk, according to Dr. Kelsey.

“The goal will be to take kids who don’t yet have [type 2] diabetes, but are at risk, and try to better understand, as some of them progress to developing diabetes, what is going on,” Dr. Kelsey said. “What are other factors that we can use to better predict who’s going to develop diabetes? And can we use the information from this [upcoming] study to understand how to better prevent it? Because nothing that has been tried so far has worked.”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIDDK, and others. The investigators and Dr. Kelsey reported no conflicts of interest.

The prevalence of youth-onset diabetes in the United States rose significantly from 2001 to 2017, with rates of type 2 diabetes climbing disproportionately among racial/ethnic minorities, according to investigators.

In individuals aged 19 years or younger, prevalence rates of type 1 and type 2 diabetes increased 45.1% and 95.3%, respectively, reported lead author Jean M. Lawrence, ScD, MPH, MSSA, program director of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolic diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“Elucidating differences in diabetes prevalence trends by diabetes type and demographic characteristics is essential to describe the burden of disease and to estimate current and future resource needs,” Dr. Lawrence and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The retrospective analysis was a part of the ongoing SEARCH study, which includes data from individuals in six areas across the United States: Colorado, California, Ohio, South Carolina, Washington state, and Arizona/New Mexico (Indian Health Services). In the present report, three prevalence years were evaluated: 2001, 2009, and 2017. For each year, approximately 3.5 million youths were included. Findings were reported in terms of diabetes type, race/ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and sex.

Absolute prevalence of type 1 diabetes per 1,000 youths increased from 1.48 in 2001, to 1.93 in 2009, and finally 2.15 in 2017. Across the 16-year period, this represents an absolute increase of 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.70), and a relative increase of 45.1% (95% CI, 40.0%-50.4%). In absolute terms, prevalence increased most among non-Hispanic White (0.93 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic Black (0.89 per 1,000) youths.

While type 2 diabetes was comparatively less common than type 1 diabetes, absolute prevalence per 1,000 youths increased to a greater degree, rising from 0.34 in 2001 to 0.46 in 2009 and to 0.67 in 2017. This amounts to relative increase across the period of 95.3% (95% CI, 77.0%-115.4%). Absolute increases were disproportionate among racial/ethnic minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic youths, who had absolute increases per 1,000 youths of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74-0.97) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51-0.64), respectively, compared with 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03-0.07) for White youths.

“Increases [among Black and Hispanic youths] were not linear,” the investigators noted. “Hispanic youths had a significantly greater increase in the first interval compared with the second interval, while Black youths had no significant increase in the first interval and a significant increase in the second interval.”

Dr. Lawrence and colleagues offered several possible factors driving these trends in type 2 diabetes.

“Changes in anthropometric risk factors appear to play a significant role,” they wrote, noting that “Black and Mexican American teenagers experienced the greatest increase in prevalence of obesity/severe obesity from 1999 to 2018, which may contribute to race and ethnicity differences. Other contributing factors may include increases in exposure to maternal obesity and diabetes (gestational and type 2 diabetes) and exposure to environmental chemicals.”

According to Megan Kelsey, MD, associate professor of pediatric endocrinology, director of lifestyle medicine endocrinology, and medical director of the bariatric surgery center at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, the increased rates of type 2 diabetes reported by the study are alarming, yet they pale in comparison with what’s been happening since the pandemic began.

“Individual institutions have reported anywhere between a 50% – which is basically what we’re seeing at our hospital – to a 300% increase in new diagnoses [of type 2 diabetes] in a single-year time period,” Dr. Kelsey said in an interview. “So what is reported [in the present study] doesn’t even get at what’s been going on over the past year and a half.”

Dr. Kelsey offered some speculative drivers of this recent surge in cases, including stress, weight gain caused by sedentary behavior and more access to food, and the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 may infect pancreatic islet beta cells, thereby interfering with insulin production.

Type 2 diabetes is particularly concerning among young people, Dr. Kelsey noted, as it is more challenging to manage than adult-onset disease.

Young patients “also develop complications much sooner than you’d expect,” she added. “So we really need to understand why these rates are increasing, how we can identify kids at risk, and how we can better prevent it, so we aren’t stuck with a disease that’s really difficult to treat.”

To this end, the NIH recently opened applications for investigators to participate in a prospective longitudinal study of youth-onset type 2 diabetes. Young people at risk of diabetes will be followed through puberty, a period of increased risk, according to Dr. Kelsey.

“The goal will be to take kids who don’t yet have [type 2] diabetes, but are at risk, and try to better understand, as some of them progress to developing diabetes, what is going on,” Dr. Kelsey said. “What are other factors that we can use to better predict who’s going to develop diabetes? And can we use the information from this [upcoming] study to understand how to better prevent it? Because nothing that has been tried so far has worked.”

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIDDK, and others. The investigators and Dr. Kelsey reported no conflicts of interest.

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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