Rheumatology News

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.

Geber86/Getty Images

But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.

The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.

“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”

Determining a follow-up regimen

Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.

“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.

“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”

At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The dedicated clinic model

The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.

Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?

“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.

After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.

“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”

The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.

“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.

“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.

Separate but coordinated appointments

A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.

“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.

Looking ahead

The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.

“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”

So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”

Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.

“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”

Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.

“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”

Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.

Geber86/Getty Images

But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.

The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.

“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”

Determining a follow-up regimen

Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.

“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.

“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”

At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The dedicated clinic model

The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.

Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?

“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.

After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.

“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”

The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.

“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.

“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.

Separate but coordinated appointments

A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.

“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.

Looking ahead

The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.

“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”

So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”

Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.

“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”

Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.

“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”

Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.

Geber86/Getty Images

But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.

The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.

“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”

Determining a follow-up regimen

Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.

“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.

“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”

At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The dedicated clinic model

The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.

Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?

“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.

After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.

“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”

The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.

“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.

“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.

Separate but coordinated appointments

A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.

“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.

Looking ahead

The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.

“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”

So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”

Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.

“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”

Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.

“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”

Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved subcutaneously-injected tocilizumab (Actemra) to reduce the rate of pulmonary function decline in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) patients, according to a press release from manufacturer Genentech.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab is the first biologic to be approved by the agency for adults with SSc-ILD, a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that may affect up to 80% of SSc patients and lead to lung inflammation and scarring.

The approval was based primarily on data from a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the focuSSced trial) that included 212 adults with SSc. Although that study failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline to 48 weeks in the modified Rodnan Skin Score, the researchers observed a significantly reduced lung function decline as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) among tocilizumab-treated patients, compared with those who received placebo. A total of 68 patients (65%) in the tocilizumab group and 68 patients (64%) in the placebo group had SSc-ILD at baseline.

In a subgroup analysis, patients taking tocilizumab had a smaller decline in mean ppFVC, compared with placebo patients (0.07% vs. –6.4%; mean difference, 6.47%), and a smaller decline in FVC (mean change –14 mL vs. –255 mL with placebo; mean difference, 241 mL).

The mean change from baseline to week 48 in modified Rodnan Skin Score was –5.88 for patients on tocilizumab and –3.77 with placebo.

Safety data were similar between tocilizumab and placebo groups through 48 weeks, and similar for patients with and without SSc-ILD. In general, tocilizumab side effects include increased susceptibility to infections, and serious side effects may include stomach tears, hepatotoxicity, and increased risk of cancer and hepatitis B, according to the prescribing information. However, the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection-site reactions.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, is already approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for adult patients with giant cell arteritis; patients aged 2 years and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis; and adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell–induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.

Prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved subcutaneously-injected tocilizumab (Actemra) to reduce the rate of pulmonary function decline in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) patients, according to a press release from manufacturer Genentech.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab is the first biologic to be approved by the agency for adults with SSc-ILD, a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that may affect up to 80% of SSc patients and lead to lung inflammation and scarring.

The approval was based primarily on data from a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the focuSSced trial) that included 212 adults with SSc. Although that study failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline to 48 weeks in the modified Rodnan Skin Score, the researchers observed a significantly reduced lung function decline as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) among tocilizumab-treated patients, compared with those who received placebo. A total of 68 patients (65%) in the tocilizumab group and 68 patients (64%) in the placebo group had SSc-ILD at baseline.

In a subgroup analysis, patients taking tocilizumab had a smaller decline in mean ppFVC, compared with placebo patients (0.07% vs. –6.4%; mean difference, 6.47%), and a smaller decline in FVC (mean change –14 mL vs. –255 mL with placebo; mean difference, 241 mL).

The mean change from baseline to week 48 in modified Rodnan Skin Score was –5.88 for patients on tocilizumab and –3.77 with placebo.

Safety data were similar between tocilizumab and placebo groups through 48 weeks, and similar for patients with and without SSc-ILD. In general, tocilizumab side effects include increased susceptibility to infections, and serious side effects may include stomach tears, hepatotoxicity, and increased risk of cancer and hepatitis B, according to the prescribing information. However, the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection-site reactions.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, is already approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for adult patients with giant cell arteritis; patients aged 2 years and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis; and adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell–induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.

Prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved subcutaneously-injected tocilizumab (Actemra) to reduce the rate of pulmonary function decline in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) patients, according to a press release from manufacturer Genentech.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab is the first biologic to be approved by the agency for adults with SSc-ILD, a rare and potentially life-threatening condition that may affect up to 80% of SSc patients and lead to lung inflammation and scarring.

The approval was based primarily on data from a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the focuSSced trial) that included 212 adults with SSc. Although that study failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline to 48 weeks in the modified Rodnan Skin Score, the researchers observed a significantly reduced lung function decline as measured by forced vital capacity (FVC) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) among tocilizumab-treated patients, compared with those who received placebo. A total of 68 patients (65%) in the tocilizumab group and 68 patients (64%) in the placebo group had SSc-ILD at baseline.

In a subgroup analysis, patients taking tocilizumab had a smaller decline in mean ppFVC, compared with placebo patients (0.07% vs. –6.4%; mean difference, 6.47%), and a smaller decline in FVC (mean change –14 mL vs. –255 mL with placebo; mean difference, 241 mL).

The mean change from baseline to week 48 in modified Rodnan Skin Score was –5.88 for patients on tocilizumab and –3.77 with placebo.

Safety data were similar between tocilizumab and placebo groups through 48 weeks, and similar for patients with and without SSc-ILD. In general, tocilizumab side effects include increased susceptibility to infections, and serious side effects may include stomach tears, hepatotoxicity, and increased risk of cancer and hepatitis B, according to the prescribing information. However, the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection-site reactions.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, is already approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for adult patients with giant cell arteritis; patients aged 2 years and older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis or active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis; and adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell–induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome.

Prescribing information is available here.

Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Weekly general vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 year fell by around 80% soon after the national COVID-19 emergency declaration and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”

The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.

The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneu­mococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococ­cal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.

Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.

After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
 

Routine vaccinations increased midyear

Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.

Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
 

Disparities in routine vaccination trends

Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.

Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Weekly general vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 year fell by around 80% soon after the national COVID-19 emergency declaration and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”

The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.

The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneu­mococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococ­cal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.

Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.

After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
 

Routine vaccinations increased midyear

Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.

Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
 

Disparities in routine vaccination trends

Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.

Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Weekly general vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 year fell by around 80% soon after the national COVID-19 emergency declaration and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”

The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.

The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneu­mococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococ­cal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.

Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.

After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
 

Routine vaccinations increased midyear

Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.

Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
 

Disparities in routine vaccination trends

Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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