Rheumatology News

Women with psoriasis can expect healthy pregnancy outcomes at a rate similar to that of the general population, according to one of the largest studies to examine the issue to date.

However, “pregnancy-specific registries that include a larger number of pregnant women with psoriasis ... are needed to more fully characterize the association between psoriasis and treatment and birth outcomes,” acknowledged first author Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The cohort study, published in JAMA Dermatology, used data from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), which “is not a pregnancy specific registry, and medical history is captured only at baseline,” they noted.

Their findings showed pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal problems, and congenital anomalies among women with moderate to severe psoriasis were similar to rates in the general U.S. population, and are “consistent with previously reported data,” they reported. “And pregnancy outcomes for women exposed to biologics were similar to those for women with exposure to nonbiologics.”

The study “provides further reassurance that the biologics appear safe at least related to pregnancy outcomes,” commented Jenny Murase, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. In an interview, she noted that the study “did not examine any potential immunosuppression of the fetus in the first 6 months of life,” which she described as “the heart of the concern, more than whether or not the psoriasis or the biologic affects the pregnancy itself.”

The study used data from the PSOLAR registry collected from June 20, 2007, to Aug.23, 2019, which included 2,224 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) who were collectively followed up for 12,929 patient-years. Among these women, 220 had 298 pregnancies, with 244 live births (81.9%).

“Birth outcomes among all 244 births included 231 healthy newborns (94.7%), 10 infants with a neonatal problem (4.1%), 1 stillbirth (0.4%), and 2 congenital anomalies (0.8%),” the authors reported.

There were also 41 spontaneous abortions (13.8%), and 13 elective terminations (4.4%). “No elective terminations were known to derive from a congenital anomaly or other medical issue,” they added.

Among the documented pregnancies, 252 occurred in women with exposure to biologic therapy either before or during pregnancy, including 168 (56.4%) during the prenatal period, while 46 pregnancies occurred in women with no exposure to biologic therapy.

Dr. Murase, director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif., said that a more detailed comparison of the different psoriasis treatments, as well as the offspring outcomes during the first 6 months of life, might offer some further important insight,.

Infants born after exposure to infliximab “and potentially other anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents during the third trimester may be unable to develop an appropriate immune response to live vaccines,” she and her coauthors cautioned in a letter published in 2011, which referred to a case of an infant with disseminated bacillus Calmette-Guérin infection, whose mother had received infliximab for Crohn’s disease throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Murase pointed out that, in the registry study, exposures to certolizumab, which is pegylated and does not cross the placental barrier, were not separated from other cases. It is important to consider “the cross over late in the second trimester and especially third trimester as the infant is getting the ‘antibody boost’ from the mother as it gets ready to set foot in this world and needs the maternal antibodies to prepare its immune system. If the IgG biologics cross third trimester and immunosuppress the infant ... then I think a medication that does not cross the placental barrier is important to consider.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Kimball’s disclosures included serving as a consultant and investigator for companies that included AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; several other authors also had disclosures related to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Murase’s disclosures included serving as a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron.

Women with psoriasis can expect healthy pregnancy outcomes at a rate similar to that of the general population, according to one of the largest studies to examine the issue to date.

However, “pregnancy-specific registries that include a larger number of pregnant women with psoriasis ... are needed to more fully characterize the association between psoriasis and treatment and birth outcomes,” acknowledged first author Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The cohort study, published in JAMA Dermatology, used data from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), which “is not a pregnancy specific registry, and medical history is captured only at baseline,” they noted.

Their findings showed pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal problems, and congenital anomalies among women with moderate to severe psoriasis were similar to rates in the general U.S. population, and are “consistent with previously reported data,” they reported. “And pregnancy outcomes for women exposed to biologics were similar to those for women with exposure to nonbiologics.”

The study “provides further reassurance that the biologics appear safe at least related to pregnancy outcomes,” commented Jenny Murase, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. In an interview, she noted that the study “did not examine any potential immunosuppression of the fetus in the first 6 months of life,” which she described as “the heart of the concern, more than whether or not the psoriasis or the biologic affects the pregnancy itself.”

The study used data from the PSOLAR registry collected from June 20, 2007, to Aug.23, 2019, which included 2,224 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) who were collectively followed up for 12,929 patient-years. Among these women, 220 had 298 pregnancies, with 244 live births (81.9%).

“Birth outcomes among all 244 births included 231 healthy newborns (94.7%), 10 infants with a neonatal problem (4.1%), 1 stillbirth (0.4%), and 2 congenital anomalies (0.8%),” the authors reported.

There were also 41 spontaneous abortions (13.8%), and 13 elective terminations (4.4%). “No elective terminations were known to derive from a congenital anomaly or other medical issue,” they added.

Among the documented pregnancies, 252 occurred in women with exposure to biologic therapy either before or during pregnancy, including 168 (56.4%) during the prenatal period, while 46 pregnancies occurred in women with no exposure to biologic therapy.

Dr. Murase, director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif., said that a more detailed comparison of the different psoriasis treatments, as well as the offspring outcomes during the first 6 months of life, might offer some further important insight,.

Infants born after exposure to infliximab “and potentially other anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents during the third trimester may be unable to develop an appropriate immune response to live vaccines,” she and her coauthors cautioned in a letter published in 2011, which referred to a case of an infant with disseminated bacillus Calmette-Guérin infection, whose mother had received infliximab for Crohn’s disease throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Murase pointed out that, in the registry study, exposures to certolizumab, which is pegylated and does not cross the placental barrier, were not separated from other cases. It is important to consider “the cross over late in the second trimester and especially third trimester as the infant is getting the ‘antibody boost’ from the mother as it gets ready to set foot in this world and needs the maternal antibodies to prepare its immune system. If the IgG biologics cross third trimester and immunosuppress the infant ... then I think a medication that does not cross the placental barrier is important to consider.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Kimball’s disclosures included serving as a consultant and investigator for companies that included AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; several other authors also had disclosures related to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Murase’s disclosures included serving as a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron.

Women with psoriasis can expect healthy pregnancy outcomes at a rate similar to that of the general population, according to one of the largest studies to examine the issue to date.

However, “pregnancy-specific registries that include a larger number of pregnant women with psoriasis ... are needed to more fully characterize the association between psoriasis and treatment and birth outcomes,” acknowledged first author Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The cohort study, published in JAMA Dermatology, used data from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR), which “is not a pregnancy specific registry, and medical history is captured only at baseline,” they noted.

Their findings showed pregnancy outcomes such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal problems, and congenital anomalies among women with moderate to severe psoriasis were similar to rates in the general U.S. population, and are “consistent with previously reported data,” they reported. “And pregnancy outcomes for women exposed to biologics were similar to those for women with exposure to nonbiologics.”

The study “provides further reassurance that the biologics appear safe at least related to pregnancy outcomes,” commented Jenny Murase, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. In an interview, she noted that the study “did not examine any potential immunosuppression of the fetus in the first 6 months of life,” which she described as “the heart of the concern, more than whether or not the psoriasis or the biologic affects the pregnancy itself.”

The study used data from the PSOLAR registry collected from June 20, 2007, to Aug.23, 2019, which included 2,224 women of childbearing age (18-45 years) who were collectively followed up for 12,929 patient-years. Among these women, 220 had 298 pregnancies, with 244 live births (81.9%).

“Birth outcomes among all 244 births included 231 healthy newborns (94.7%), 10 infants with a neonatal problem (4.1%), 1 stillbirth (0.4%), and 2 congenital anomalies (0.8%),” the authors reported.

There were also 41 spontaneous abortions (13.8%), and 13 elective terminations (4.4%). “No elective terminations were known to derive from a congenital anomaly or other medical issue,” they added.

Among the documented pregnancies, 252 occurred in women with exposure to biologic therapy either before or during pregnancy, including 168 (56.4%) during the prenatal period, while 46 pregnancies occurred in women with no exposure to biologic therapy.

Dr. Murase, director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif., said that a more detailed comparison of the different psoriasis treatments, as well as the offspring outcomes during the first 6 months of life, might offer some further important insight,.

Infants born after exposure to infliximab “and potentially other anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents during the third trimester may be unable to develop an appropriate immune response to live vaccines,” she and her coauthors cautioned in a letter published in 2011, which referred to a case of an infant with disseminated bacillus Calmette-Guérin infection, whose mother had received infliximab for Crohn’s disease throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Murase pointed out that, in the registry study, exposures to certolizumab, which is pegylated and does not cross the placental barrier, were not separated from other cases. It is important to consider “the cross over late in the second trimester and especially third trimester as the infant is getting the ‘antibody boost’ from the mother as it gets ready to set foot in this world and needs the maternal antibodies to prepare its immune system. If the IgG biologics cross third trimester and immunosuppress the infant ... then I think a medication that does not cross the placental barrier is important to consider.”

The study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Kimball’s disclosures included serving as a consultant and investigator for companies that included AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen; several other authors also had disclosures related to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Murase’s disclosures included serving as a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron.

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommended immunization schedule for adults for 2021.

A summary of the annual update was published online Feb. 11 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is available in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

It features a special section on vaccination during the pandemic as well as interim recommendations on administering the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors, led by Mark S. Freedman, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in Atlanta, note that this year’s recommendations for adults – persons aged 19 years and older – are largely the same as last year’s. “There have been very few changes,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. “Changes to the schedule tables and notes were made to harmonize to the greatest extent possible the adult and child/adolescent schedules.”

Changes in the schedule include new or updated ACIP recommendations for influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B (Hep B), and human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as for meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACYW) vaccines, meningococcal B (MenB) vaccines, and the zoster vaccine.

Vaccine-specific changes

Influenza

The schedule highlights updates to the composition of several influenza vaccines, which apply to components in both trivalent and quadrivalent formulations.

The cover page abbreviation for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was changed to LAIV4. The abbreviation for live recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) was changed to RIV4.

For individuals with a history of egg allergy who experience reactions other than hives, the following procedural warning has been added: “If using an influenza vaccine other than RIV4 or ccIIV4, administer in medical setting under supervision of health care provider who can recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.”

Zoster

The zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) has been removed from the schedule because it is no longer available in the United States. The recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix remains available as a 2-dose regimen for adults aged 50 years or older.

HPV

As in previous years, HPV vaccination is routinely recommended for persons aged 11-12 years, with catch-up vaccination for those aged 26 or younger. Catch-up vaccination can be considered with shared decision making for those aged 27 through 45. In this year’s schedule, in the pregnancy column, the color pink, which formerly indicated “delay until after pregnancy,” has been replaced with red and an asterisk, indicating “vaccinate after pregnancy.”

HepB

ACIP continues to recommend vaccination of adults at risk for HepB; however, the text overlay has been changed to read, “2, 3, or 4 doses, depending on vaccine or condition.” Additionally, HepB vaccination is now routinely recommended for adults younger than 60 years with diabetes. For those with diabetes who are older than 60, shared decision making is recommended.

Meningococcal vaccine

ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y. The MenQuadfi (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, which was first licensed in 2020, has been added to all relevant sections of MenACWY vaccines. For MenACWY booster doses, new text addresses special situations, including outbreaks.

Improvements have been made to text and layout, Dr. Freedman said. An example is the minimizing of specialized text. Other changes were made to ensure more consistent text structure and language. Various fine-tunings of color and positioning were made to the cover page and tables, and the wording of the notes sections was improved.

Vaccination in the pandemic

The updated schedule outlines guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization, with interim recommendations for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and older and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The authors stress the importance of receiving the recommended routine and catch-up immunizations notwithstanding widespread anxiety about visiting medical offices. Last spring, the CDC reported a dramatic drop in child vaccinations after the declaration of the national emergency in mid-March, a drop attributed to fear of COVID-19 exposure.

“ACIP continued to meet and make recommendations during the pandemic,” Dr. Freedman said. “Our recommendation remains that despite challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adults and their healthcare providers should follow the recommended vaccine schedule to protect against serious and sometimes deadly diseases.”

Regular vaccines can be safely administered even as COVID-19 retains its grasp on the United States. “Healthcare providers should follow the CDC’s interim guidance for the safe delivery of vaccines during the pandemic, which includes the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Freedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Henry Bernstein, DO, is the editor of the Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series, is a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member, and is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for a Takeda study on intrathecal enzymes for Hunter and San Filippo syndromes. Coauthor Kevin Ault, MD, has served on the data safety and monitoring committee for ACI Clinical.
 

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommended immunization schedule for adults for 2021.

A summary of the annual update was published online Feb. 11 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is available in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

It features a special section on vaccination during the pandemic as well as interim recommendations on administering the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors, led by Mark S. Freedman, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in Atlanta, note that this year’s recommendations for adults – persons aged 19 years and older – are largely the same as last year’s. “There have been very few changes,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. “Changes to the schedule tables and notes were made to harmonize to the greatest extent possible the adult and child/adolescent schedules.”

Changes in the schedule include new or updated ACIP recommendations for influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B (Hep B), and human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as for meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACYW) vaccines, meningococcal B (MenB) vaccines, and the zoster vaccine.

Vaccine-specific changes

Influenza

The schedule highlights updates to the composition of several influenza vaccines, which apply to components in both trivalent and quadrivalent formulations.

The cover page abbreviation for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was changed to LAIV4. The abbreviation for live recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) was changed to RIV4.

For individuals with a history of egg allergy who experience reactions other than hives, the following procedural warning has been added: “If using an influenza vaccine other than RIV4 or ccIIV4, administer in medical setting under supervision of health care provider who can recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.”

Zoster

The zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) has been removed from the schedule because it is no longer available in the United States. The recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix remains available as a 2-dose regimen for adults aged 50 years or older.

HPV

As in previous years, HPV vaccination is routinely recommended for persons aged 11-12 years, with catch-up vaccination for those aged 26 or younger. Catch-up vaccination can be considered with shared decision making for those aged 27 through 45. In this year’s schedule, in the pregnancy column, the color pink, which formerly indicated “delay until after pregnancy,” has been replaced with red and an asterisk, indicating “vaccinate after pregnancy.”

HepB

ACIP continues to recommend vaccination of adults at risk for HepB; however, the text overlay has been changed to read, “2, 3, or 4 doses, depending on vaccine or condition.” Additionally, HepB vaccination is now routinely recommended for adults younger than 60 years with diabetes. For those with diabetes who are older than 60, shared decision making is recommended.

Meningococcal vaccine

ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y. The MenQuadfi (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, which was first licensed in 2020, has been added to all relevant sections of MenACWY vaccines. For MenACWY booster doses, new text addresses special situations, including outbreaks.

Improvements have been made to text and layout, Dr. Freedman said. An example is the minimizing of specialized text. Other changes were made to ensure more consistent text structure and language. Various fine-tunings of color and positioning were made to the cover page and tables, and the wording of the notes sections was improved.

Vaccination in the pandemic

The updated schedule outlines guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization, with interim recommendations for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and older and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The authors stress the importance of receiving the recommended routine and catch-up immunizations notwithstanding widespread anxiety about visiting medical offices. Last spring, the CDC reported a dramatic drop in child vaccinations after the declaration of the national emergency in mid-March, a drop attributed to fear of COVID-19 exposure.

“ACIP continued to meet and make recommendations during the pandemic,” Dr. Freedman said. “Our recommendation remains that despite challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adults and their healthcare providers should follow the recommended vaccine schedule to protect against serious and sometimes deadly diseases.”

Regular vaccines can be safely administered even as COVID-19 retains its grasp on the United States. “Healthcare providers should follow the CDC’s interim guidance for the safe delivery of vaccines during the pandemic, which includes the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Freedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Henry Bernstein, DO, is the editor of the Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series, is a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member, and is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for a Takeda study on intrathecal enzymes for Hunter and San Filippo syndromes. Coauthor Kevin Ault, MD, has served on the data safety and monitoring committee for ACI Clinical.
 

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

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommended immunization schedule for adults for 2021.

A summary of the annual update was published online Feb. 11 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and is available in Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

It features a special section on vaccination during the pandemic as well as interim recommendations on administering the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors, led by Mark S. Freedman, DVM, MPH, DACVPM, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, in Atlanta, note that this year’s recommendations for adults – persons aged 19 years and older – are largely the same as last year’s. “There have been very few changes,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. “Changes to the schedule tables and notes were made to harmonize to the greatest extent possible the adult and child/adolescent schedules.”

Changes in the schedule include new or updated ACIP recommendations for influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B (Hep B), and human papillomavirus (HPV) as well as for meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y (MenACYW) vaccines, meningococcal B (MenB) vaccines, and the zoster vaccine.

Vaccine-specific changes

Influenza

The schedule highlights updates to the composition of several influenza vaccines, which apply to components in both trivalent and quadrivalent formulations.

The cover page abbreviation for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was changed to LAIV4. The abbreviation for live recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) was changed to RIV4.

For individuals with a history of egg allergy who experience reactions other than hives, the following procedural warning has been added: “If using an influenza vaccine other than RIV4 or ccIIV4, administer in medical setting under supervision of health care provider who can recognize and manage severe allergic reactions.”

Zoster

The zoster vaccine live (Zostavax) has been removed from the schedule because it is no longer available in the United States. The recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix remains available as a 2-dose regimen for adults aged 50 years or older.

HPV

As in previous years, HPV vaccination is routinely recommended for persons aged 11-12 years, with catch-up vaccination for those aged 26 or younger. Catch-up vaccination can be considered with shared decision making for those aged 27 through 45. In this year’s schedule, in the pregnancy column, the color pink, which formerly indicated “delay until after pregnancy,” has been replaced with red and an asterisk, indicating “vaccinate after pregnancy.”

HepB

ACIP continues to recommend vaccination of adults at risk for HepB; however, the text overlay has been changed to read, “2, 3, or 4 doses, depending on vaccine or condition.” Additionally, HepB vaccination is now routinely recommended for adults younger than 60 years with diabetes. For those with diabetes who are older than 60, shared decision making is recommended.

Meningococcal vaccine

ACIP continues to recommend routine vaccination with a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) for persons at increased risk for meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, W, or Y. The MenQuadfi (MenACWY-TT) vaccine, which was first licensed in 2020, has been added to all relevant sections of MenACWY vaccines. For MenACWY booster doses, new text addresses special situations, including outbreaks.

Improvements have been made to text and layout, Dr. Freedman said. An example is the minimizing of specialized text. Other changes were made to ensure more consistent text structure and language. Various fine-tunings of color and positioning were made to the cover page and tables, and the wording of the notes sections was improved.

Vaccination in the pandemic

The updated schedule outlines guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization, with interim recommendations for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and older and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The authors stress the importance of receiving the recommended routine and catch-up immunizations notwithstanding widespread anxiety about visiting medical offices. Last spring, the CDC reported a dramatic drop in child vaccinations after the declaration of the national emergency in mid-March, a drop attributed to fear of COVID-19 exposure.

“ACIP continued to meet and make recommendations during the pandemic,” Dr. Freedman said. “Our recommendation remains that despite challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adults and their healthcare providers should follow the recommended vaccine schedule to protect against serious and sometimes deadly diseases.”

Regular vaccines can be safely administered even as COVID-19 retains its grasp on the United States. “Healthcare providers should follow the CDC’s interim guidance for the safe delivery of vaccines during the pandemic, which includes the use of personal protective equipment and physical distancing,” Dr. Freedman said.

Dr. Freedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Henry Bernstein, DO, is the editor of the Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series, is a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member, and is a member of the data safety and monitoring board for a Takeda study on intrathecal enzymes for Hunter and San Filippo syndromes. Coauthor Kevin Ault, MD, has served on the data safety and monitoring committee for ACI Clinical.
 

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

Critical care staff are less likely to acquire COVID-19 infection from ICU patients than they are from areas away from the bedside, a new study has found.

Courtesy NIAID

“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.

She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.

The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.

“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”

The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.

“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”

All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.

Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).

Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.

“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”

Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.

The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.

“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”

There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.

These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.

In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.

“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”

Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”

Critical care staff are less likely to acquire COVID-19 infection from ICU patients than they are from areas away from the bedside, a new study has found.

Courtesy NIAID

“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.

She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.

The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.

“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”

The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.

“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”

All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.

Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).

Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.

“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”

Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.

The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.

“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”

There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.

These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.

In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.

“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”

Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”

Critical care staff are less likely to acquire COVID-19 infection from ICU patients than they are from areas away from the bedside, a new study has found.

Courtesy NIAID

“Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection,” said lead author Kate El Bouzidi, MRCP, South London Specialist Virology Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London.

She noted that 60% of critical care staff were symptomatic during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and 20% were antibody positive, with 10% asymptomatic. “Staff acquisition peaked 3 weeks before the peak of COVID-19 ICU admission, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was effective at preventing transmission from patients.” Working in other areas of the hospital was associated with higher seroprevalence, Dr. El Bouzidi noted.

The findings were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The novel coronavirus was spreading around the world, and when it reached northern Italy, medical authorities began to think in terms of how it might overwhelm the health care system in the United Kingdom, explained Dr. El Bouzidi.

“There was a lot of interest at this time about health care workers who were particularly vulnerable and also about the allocation of resources and rationing of care, particularly in intensive care,” she said. “And this only intensified when our prime minister was admitted to intensive care. About this time, antibody testing also became available.”

The goal of their study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in critical care staff, as well as look at the correlation between antibody status, prior swab testing, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The survey was conducted at Kings College Hospital in London, which is a tertiary-care teaching center. The critical care department is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. The authors estimate that more than 800 people worked in the critical care units, and between March and April 2020, more than 2,000 patients with COVID-19 were admitted, of whom 180 required care in the ICU.

“There was good PPE available in the ICU units right from the start,” she said, “and staff testing was available.”

All staff working in the critical care department participated in the study, which required serum samples and completion of a questionnaire. The samples were tested via six different assays to measure receptor-binding domain, nucleoprotein, and tri-spike, with one antibody result determined for each sample.

Of the 625 staff members, 384 (61.4%) had previously reported experiencing symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. COVID-19 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those health care workers (29.8%).

Overall, 21% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, of whom 9.9% had been asymptomatic.

“We were surprised to find that 61% of staff reported symptoms they felt could be consistent with COVID-19,” she said, noting that fatigue, headache, and cough were the most common symptoms reported. “Seroprevalence was reported in 31% of symptomatic staff and in 5% of those without symptoms.”

Seroprevalence differed by role in a critical care unit, although it did not significantly differ by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, or underlying conditions. Consultants, who are senior physicians, were twice as likely to test positive, compared with junior doctors. The reason for this finding is not clear, but it may lie in the nature of their work responsibilities, such as performing more aerosol-generating procedures in the ICU or in other departments.

The investigators looked at the timing of infections and found that they preceded peak of patient admissions by 3 weeks, with peak onset of staff symptoms in early March. At this time, Dr. El Bouzidi noted, there were very few patients with COVID-19 in the hospital, and good PPE was available throughout this time period.

“Staff were unlikely to be infected by ICU patients, and therefore PPE was largely effective,” she said. “Other sources of infection were more likely to be the cause, such as interactions with other staff, meetings, or contact in break rooms. Routine mask-wearing throughout the hospital was only encouraged as of June 15.”

There were several limitations to the study, such as the cross-sectional design, reliance on response/recall, the fact that antibody tests are unlikely to detect all previous infections, and no genomic data were available to confirm infections. Even though the study had limitations, Dr. El Bouzidi concluded that ICU staff are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from patients but that other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection.

These findings, she added, demonstrate that PPE was effective at preventing transmission from patients and that protective measures need to be maintained when staff is away from the bedside.

In commenting on the study, Greg S. Martin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care and sleep medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, noted that, even though the study was conducted almost a year ago, the results are still relevant with regard to the effectiveness of PPE.

“There was a huge amount of uncertainty about PPE – what was most effective, could we reuse it, how to sterilize it, what about surfaces, and so on,” he said. “Even for people who work in ICU and who are familiar with the environment and familiar with the patients, there was 1,000 times more uncertainty about everything they were doing.”

Dr. Martin believes that the situation has improved. “It’s not that we take COVID more lightly, but I think the staff is more comfortable dealing with it,” he said. “They now know what they need to do on an hourly and daily basis to stay safe. The PPE had become second nature to them now, with all the other precautions.”

Five lines of research related to COVID-19 and people with rheumatic diseases will be explored with $1.65 million awarded recently by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

Investigators will explore topics ranging from respiratory health to telemedicine with the awards, given by the foundation that is the largest private funding source for rheumatology research and training in the United States. The projects are an attempt to deepen the understanding about how people with rheumatic illnesses are affected by COVID-19.

“Our current understanding of why there are differences in severity of COVID-19 illness among rheumatology patients is limited,” Foundation President S. Louis Bridges, MD, PhD, said. “Additionally, there are many other gaps in our knowledge of the clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases, and how the pandemic has changed health care delivery. There is an urgent need to acquire new knowledge on COVID-19 in patients with [rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases].”

These are the research projects funded:

• Scientist Development Award: Respiratory complications of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in rheumatic diseases, led by Kristin D’Silva, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (3-year, $225,000 grant)
• Scientist Development Award: COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory arthritis: A prospective study on the effects of immunomodulatory therapy on susceptibility and clinical outcomes, by Rebecca Haberman, MD, of New York University (3-year, $225,000 grant)
• Innovative Research Award: Antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19, led by Jason Knight, MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2-year, $400,000 grant);
• Innovative Research Award: Effectiveness of telerheumatology for delivering high-quality rheumatology care during the COVID-19 crisis, led by Maria Danila, MD, MSc, MSPH, of University of Alabama at Birmingham (2-year, $400,000 grant)
• Norman B. Gaylis, MD, Clinical Research Award: Telehealth-delivered health care to improve care (THRIVE) in community-practice rheumatology, led by Swamy Venuturupalli, MD, of Beverly Hills, Calif.–based Attune Health (2-year, $400,000 grant)

Dr. Bridges said the foundation accepted submissions in basic science, translational science, clinical science, health services research, and patient- and practice-centered research.

“What differentiates these studies from our existing awards portfolio is they all explore the relationships between rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Ultimately, the outcomes of these projects will contribute to a more comprehensive knowledge base and advance avenues of patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Courtesy Dr. Norman Gaylis

Dr. Gaylis, a rheumatologist in private practice in Aventura, Fla., said he was pleased that a telehealth project was chosen as the award given in his name.

“From a COVID point of view, this has been extremely valuable in allowing us to continue to help out patients, connect with our patients, provide them treatment, even if it’s not hands on, at least guide them in how to deal with their chronic rheumatic illnesses,” he said.

This line of research can also help explore the feasibility of telemedicine in helping meet the needs of rural communities facing shortages of rheumatologists.

“Can telemedicine provide a source of rheumatologic access for people who really don’t have a live provider in close proximity?” he said. “I think that’s really why this particular award is very, very timely.”

“It’s so difficult for clinicians to get funding for their research, for their ideas and for the discoveries they were making on a day-to-day basis while they were practicing in a clinical community environment,” he said. “So for me it was really something that inspired me to really create this award.”

Five lines of research related to COVID-19 and people with rheumatic diseases will be explored with $1.65 million awarded recently by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

Investigators will explore topics ranging from respiratory health to telemedicine with the awards, given by the foundation that is the largest private funding source for rheumatology research and training in the United States. The projects are an attempt to deepen the understanding about how people with rheumatic illnesses are affected by COVID-19.

“Our current understanding of why there are differences in severity of COVID-19 illness among rheumatology patients is limited,” Foundation President S. Louis Bridges, MD, PhD, said. “Additionally, there are many other gaps in our knowledge of the clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases, and how the pandemic has changed health care delivery. There is an urgent need to acquire new knowledge on COVID-19 in patients with [rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases].”

These are the research projects funded:

• Scientist Development Award: Respiratory complications of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in rheumatic diseases, led by Kristin D’Silva, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (3-year, $225,000 grant)
• Scientist Development Award: COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory arthritis: A prospective study on the effects of immunomodulatory therapy on susceptibility and clinical outcomes, by Rebecca Haberman, MD, of New York University (3-year, $225,000 grant)
• Innovative Research Award: Antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19, led by Jason Knight, MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2-year, $400,000 grant);
• Innovative Research Award: Effectiveness of telerheumatology for delivering high-quality rheumatology care during the COVID-19 crisis, led by Maria Danila, MD, MSc, MSPH, of University of Alabama at Birmingham (2-year, $400,000 grant)
• Norman B. Gaylis, MD, Clinical Research Award: Telehealth-delivered health care to improve care (THRIVE) in community-practice rheumatology, led by Swamy Venuturupalli, MD, of Beverly Hills, Calif.–based Attune Health (2-year, $400,000 grant)

Dr. Bridges said the foundation accepted submissions in basic science, translational science, clinical science, health services research, and patient- and practice-centered research.

“What differentiates these studies from our existing awards portfolio is they all explore the relationships between rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Ultimately, the outcomes of these projects will contribute to a more comprehensive knowledge base and advance avenues of patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Courtesy Dr. Norman Gaylis

Dr. Gaylis, a rheumatologist in private practice in Aventura, Fla., said he was pleased that a telehealth project was chosen as the award given in his name.

“From a COVID point of view, this has been extremely valuable in allowing us to continue to help out patients, connect with our patients, provide them treatment, even if it’s not hands on, at least guide them in how to deal with their chronic rheumatic illnesses,” he said.

This line of research can also help explore the feasibility of telemedicine in helping meet the needs of rural communities facing shortages of rheumatologists.

“Can telemedicine provide a source of rheumatologic access for people who really don’t have a live provider in close proximity?” he said. “I think that’s really why this particular award is very, very timely.”

“It’s so difficult for clinicians to get funding for their research, for their ideas and for the discoveries they were making on a day-to-day basis while they were practicing in a clinical community environment,” he said. “So for me it was really something that inspired me to really create this award.”

Five lines of research related to COVID-19 and people with rheumatic diseases will be explored with $1.65 million awarded recently by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

Investigators will explore topics ranging from respiratory health to telemedicine with the awards, given by the foundation that is the largest private funding source for rheumatology research and training in the United States. The projects are an attempt to deepen the understanding about how people with rheumatic illnesses are affected by COVID-19.

“Our current understanding of why there are differences in severity of COVID-19 illness among rheumatology patients is limited,” Foundation President S. Louis Bridges, MD, PhD, said. “Additionally, there are many other gaps in our knowledge of the clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases, and how the pandemic has changed health care delivery. There is an urgent need to acquire new knowledge on COVID-19 in patients with [rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases].”

These are the research projects funded:

• Scientist Development Award: Respiratory complications of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in rheumatic diseases, led by Kristin D’Silva, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (3-year, $225,000 grant)
• Scientist Development Award: COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory arthritis: A prospective study on the effects of immunomodulatory therapy on susceptibility and clinical outcomes, by Rebecca Haberman, MD, of New York University (3-year, $225,000 grant)
• Innovative Research Award: Antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19, led by Jason Knight, MD, PhD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2-year, $400,000 grant);
• Innovative Research Award: Effectiveness of telerheumatology for delivering high-quality rheumatology care during the COVID-19 crisis, led by Maria Danila, MD, MSc, MSPH, of University of Alabama at Birmingham (2-year, $400,000 grant)
• Norman B. Gaylis, MD, Clinical Research Award: Telehealth-delivered health care to improve care (THRIVE) in community-practice rheumatology, led by Swamy Venuturupalli, MD, of Beverly Hills, Calif.–based Attune Health (2-year, $400,000 grant)

Dr. Bridges said the foundation accepted submissions in basic science, translational science, clinical science, health services research, and patient- and practice-centered research.

“What differentiates these studies from our existing awards portfolio is they all explore the relationships between rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Ultimately, the outcomes of these projects will contribute to a more comprehensive knowledge base and advance avenues of patient care in the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Courtesy Dr. Norman Gaylis

Dr. Gaylis, a rheumatologist in private practice in Aventura, Fla., said he was pleased that a telehealth project was chosen as the award given in his name.

“From a COVID point of view, this has been extremely valuable in allowing us to continue to help out patients, connect with our patients, provide them treatment, even if it’s not hands on, at least guide them in how to deal with their chronic rheumatic illnesses,” he said.

This line of research can also help explore the feasibility of telemedicine in helping meet the needs of rural communities facing shortages of rheumatologists.

“Can telemedicine provide a source of rheumatologic access for people who really don’t have a live provider in close proximity?” he said. “I think that’s really why this particular award is very, very timely.”

“It’s so difficult for clinicians to get funding for their research, for their ideas and for the discoveries they were making on a day-to-day basis while they were practicing in a clinical community environment,” he said. “So for me it was really something that inspired me to really create this award.”

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Science by press release and preprint has cooled clinician enthusiasm for the use of colchicine in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19, despite a pressing need for early treatments.

Photo by Jimmy Hamelin

As previously reported by this news organization, a Jan. 22 press release announced that the massive ColCORONA study missed its primary endpoint of hospitalization or death among 4,488 newly diagnosed patients at increased risk for hospitalization.

But it also touted that use of the anti-inflammatory drug significantly reduced the primary endpoint in 4,159 of those patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID and led to reductions of 25%, 50%, and 44%, respectively, for hospitalizations, ventilations, and death.

Lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, deemed the findings a “medical breakthrough.”

When the preprint released a few days later, however, newly revealed confidence intervals showed colchicine did not meaningfully reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.07) or death alone (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19-1.66).

Further, the significant benefit on the primary outcome came at the cost of a fivefold increase in pulmonary embolism (11 vs. 2; P = .01), which was not mentioned in the press release.

“Whether this represents a real phenomenon or simply the play of chance is not known,” Dr. Tardif and colleagues noted later in the preprint.

“I read the preprint on colchicine and I have so many questions,” Aaron E. Glatt, MD, spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases, Mount Sinai South Nassau, Hewlett, N.Y., said in an interview. “I’ve been burned too many times with COVID and prefer to see better data.

“People sometimes say if you wait for perfect data, people are going to die,” he said. “Yeah, but we have no idea if people are going to die from getting this drug more than not getting it. That’s what concerns me. How many pulmonary emboli are going to be fatal versus the slight benefit that the study showed?”

The pushback to the non–peer-reviewed data on social media and via emails was so strong that Dr. Tardif posted a nearly 2,000-word letter responding to the many questions at play.

Chief among them was why the trial, originally planned for 6,000 patients, was stopped early by the investigators without consultation with the data safety monitoring board (DSMB).

The explanation in the letter that logistical issues like running the study call center, budget constraints, and a perceived need to quickly communicate the results left some calling foul that the study wasn’t allowed to finish and come to a more definitive conclusion.

“I can be a little bit sympathetic to their cause but at the same time the DSMB should have said no,” said David Boulware, MD, MPH, who led a recent hydroxychloroquine trial in COVID-19. “The problem is we’re sort of left in limbo, where some people kind of believe it and some say it’s not really a thing. So it’s not really moving the needle, as far as guidelines go.”

Indeed, a Twitter poll by cardiologist James Januzzi Jr., MD, captured the uncertainty, with 28% of respondents saying the trial was “neutral,” 58% saying “maybe but meh,” and 14% saying “colchicine for all.”

Another poll cheekily asked whether ColCORONA was the Gamestop/Reddit equivalent of COVID.

“The press release really didn’t help things because it very much oversold the effect. That, I think, poisoned the well,” said Dr. Boulware, professor of medicine in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The question I’m left with is not whether colchicine works, but who does it work in,” he said. “That’s really the fundamental question because it does seem that there are probably high-risk groups in their trial and others where they benefit, whereas other groups don’t benefit. In the subgroup analysis, there was absolutely no beneficial effect in women.”

According to the authors, the number needed to treat to prevent one death or hospitalization was 71 overall, but 29 for patients with diabetes, 31 for those aged 70 years and older, 53 for patients with respiratory disease, and 25 for those with coronary disease or heart failure.

Men are at higher risk overall for poor outcomes. But “the authors didn’t present a multivariable analysis, so it is unclear if another factor, such as a differential prevalence of smoking or cardiovascular risk factors, contributed to the differential benefit,” Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, infectious disease specialist, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Importantly, in this pragmatic study, duration and severity of symptoms were not reported, observed Dr. Bender Ignacio, who is also a STOP-COVID-2 investigator. “We don’t yet have data as to whether colchicine shortens duration or severity of symptoms or prevents long COVID, so we need more data on that.”

The overall risk for serious adverse events was lower in the colchicine group, but the difference in pulmonary embolism (PE) was striking, she said. This could be caused by a real biologic effect, or it’s possible that persons with shortness of breath and hypoxia, without evident viral pneumonia on chest x-ray after a positive COVID-19 test, were more likely to receive a CT-PE study.

The press release also failed to include information, later noted in the preprint, that the MHI has submitted two patents related to colchicine: “Methods of treating a coronavirus infection using colchicine” and “Early administration of low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction.”

Reached for clarification, MHI communications adviser Camille Turbide said in an interview that the first patent “simply refers to the novel concept of preventing complications of COVID-19, such as admission to the hospital, with colchicine as tested in the ColCORONA study.”

The second patent, she said, refers to the “novel concept that administering colchicine early after a major adverse cardiovascular event is better than waiting several days,” as supported by the COLCOT study, which Dr. Tardif also led.

The patents are being reviewed by authorities and “Dr. Tardif has waived his rights in these patents and does not stand to benefit financially at all if colchicine becomes used as a treatment for COVID-19,” Ms. Turbide said.

Dr. Tardif did not respond to interview requests for this story. Dr. Glatt said conflicts of interest must be assessed and are “something that is of great concern in any scientific study.”

Cardiologist Steve Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview that, “despite the negative results, the study does suggest that colchicine might have a benefit and should be studied in future trials. These findings are not sufficient evidence to suggest use of the drug in patients infected with COVID-19.”

He noted that adverse effects like diarrhea were expected but that the excess PE was unexpected and needs greater clarification.

“Stopping the trial for administrative reasons is puzzling and undermined the ability of the trial to give a reliable answer,” Dr. Nissen said. “This is a reasonable pilot study that should be viewed as hypothesis generating but inconclusive.”

Several sources said a new trial is unlikely, particularly given the cost and 28 trials already evaluating colchicine. Among these are RECOVERY and COLCOVID, testing whether colchicine can reduce the duration of hospitalization or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Because there are so many trials ongoing right now, including for antivirals and other immunomodulators, it’s important that, if colchicine comes to routine clinical use, it provides access to treatment for those not able or willing to access clinical trials, rather than impeding clinical trial enrollment, Dr. Bender Ignacio suggested.

“We have already learned the lesson in the pandemic that early adoption of potentially promising therapies can negatively impact our ability to study and develop other promising treatments,” she said.

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais, and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators. Dr. Glatt reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Boulware reported receiving $18 in food and beverages from Gilead Sciences in 2018.
 

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

Sonelokinab, an investigational interleukin-17A/F (IL-A/F)–targeted agent utilizing a novel therapeutic platform known as a nanobody, achieved exceptionally rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in moderate to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in a phase 2b randomized trial, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A nanobody is a tiny antibody fragment with a much smaller molecular weight than the monoclonal antibodies utilized today in treating psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. The sonelokinab nanobody, derived from animals in the camel family, is a recombinant sequence-optimized nanobody specific for human IL-17F, IL-17A, the heterodimer IL-17A/F, and serum albumin. The binding to serum albumin give sonelokinab a lengthy half-life of 10-12 hours, which may be therapeutically relevant, explained Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

He presented the 24-week results of a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial including 313 North American and European adults with an average 18-year history of psoriasis and a baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of about 21. They were randomized to one of six treatment arms for the first 12 weeks: subcutaneous injection of sonelokinab at 30, 60, or 120 mg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8; enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab at 120 mg every 2 weeks through week 10; the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) at its standard dosing as an active comparator; or placebo. Data analysis was by rigorous nonresponder imputation, meaning anyone who didn’t complete the study was scored as a nonresponder.

“This yields a conservative data analysis somewhat biased against sonelokinab,” the dermatologist pointed out.

The primary outcome in the trial was the week-12 rate of an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, indicative of clear or almost clear skin. This was achieved in 88.2% of patients in the highest-dose arm of sonelokinab. That group also had a week-12 PASI 90 response rate of 76.5% and a PASI 100 response rate of 33.3%. By comparison, patients on standard-dose secukinumab had a less robust week-12 IGA 0/1 rate of 77.4%, a PASI 90 of 64.2%, and a PASI 100 of 28.3%. Of note, however, this secukinumab performance was better than seen in the 30-mg sonelokinab group, and comparable to outcomes with 60 mg of sonelokinab.

Dose escalation was performed from weeks 12-24. Patients with a week-12 IGA score greater than 1 after being on sonelokinab at 30 or 60 mg were upgraded to 120 mg at week 12 and again every 4 weeks thereafter. Placebo-treated controls were switched to 120 mg at weeks 12, 14, 16, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The group on the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab moved to 120 mg every 4 weeks, while those who had gotten four doses of sonelokinab at 120 mg during the first 12 weeks were switched to 120 mg every 8 weeks. The secukinumab group remained on the approved dosing through week 24.

At week 24, superior outcomes were seen in the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab group, with an IGA 0/1 response rate of 94.2%, a PASI 90 of 90.4%, and a PASI 100 of 56.9%. The corresponding week-24 rates in patients on 120 mg of sonelokinab every 8 weeks from week 12 on were 80.4%, 79.2%, and 40.4%, outcomes similar to those seen with secukinumab.

The rapidity of response to sonelokinab at 120 mg was striking, with approximately one-third of treated patients achieving a PASI 90 response by week 4.

“This could reflect the smaller molecular profile. There is possibly rapid increased absorption or bioavailability, quicker time to achieving serum half-life, better penetration into target tissue, and perhaps more effective engagement at the target. All of those things are possibilities. These are things that are yet to be explored, but it’s very enticing to see that uncharacteristically rapid initial response. It’s all very gratifying – and tantalizing,” Dr. Papp said in response to an audience question.

The safety profile of sonelokinab was reassuring. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis in 13.5% of patients and pruritus in 6.7%, with most cases being mild or moderate. As with other IL-17 blockers, there was an increase in oral candidiasis. This side effect appeared to occur in dose-dependent fashion: The incidence was zero in the 30-mg group, 1.9% with 60 mg, 3.8% with sonelokinab at 120 mg without an enhanced loading dose, and 5.9% with the enhanced loading dose.

The study was conducted by Avillion in partnership with Merck. Dr. Papp reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to those and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sonelokinab, an investigational interleukin-17A/F (IL-A/F)–targeted agent utilizing a novel therapeutic platform known as a nanobody, achieved exceptionally rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in moderate to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in a phase 2b randomized trial, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A nanobody is a tiny antibody fragment with a much smaller molecular weight than the monoclonal antibodies utilized today in treating psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. The sonelokinab nanobody, derived from animals in the camel family, is a recombinant sequence-optimized nanobody specific for human IL-17F, IL-17A, the heterodimer IL-17A/F, and serum albumin. The binding to serum albumin give sonelokinab a lengthy half-life of 10-12 hours, which may be therapeutically relevant, explained Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

He presented the 24-week results of a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial including 313 North American and European adults with an average 18-year history of psoriasis and a baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of about 21. They were randomized to one of six treatment arms for the first 12 weeks: subcutaneous injection of sonelokinab at 30, 60, or 120 mg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8; enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab at 120 mg every 2 weeks through week 10; the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) at its standard dosing as an active comparator; or placebo. Data analysis was by rigorous nonresponder imputation, meaning anyone who didn’t complete the study was scored as a nonresponder.

“This yields a conservative data analysis somewhat biased against sonelokinab,” the dermatologist pointed out.

The primary outcome in the trial was the week-12 rate of an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, indicative of clear or almost clear skin. This was achieved in 88.2% of patients in the highest-dose arm of sonelokinab. That group also had a week-12 PASI 90 response rate of 76.5% and a PASI 100 response rate of 33.3%. By comparison, patients on standard-dose secukinumab had a less robust week-12 IGA 0/1 rate of 77.4%, a PASI 90 of 64.2%, and a PASI 100 of 28.3%. Of note, however, this secukinumab performance was better than seen in the 30-mg sonelokinab group, and comparable to outcomes with 60 mg of sonelokinab.

Dose escalation was performed from weeks 12-24. Patients with a week-12 IGA score greater than 1 after being on sonelokinab at 30 or 60 mg were upgraded to 120 mg at week 12 and again every 4 weeks thereafter. Placebo-treated controls were switched to 120 mg at weeks 12, 14, 16, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The group on the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab moved to 120 mg every 4 weeks, while those who had gotten four doses of sonelokinab at 120 mg during the first 12 weeks were switched to 120 mg every 8 weeks. The secukinumab group remained on the approved dosing through week 24.

At week 24, superior outcomes were seen in the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab group, with an IGA 0/1 response rate of 94.2%, a PASI 90 of 90.4%, and a PASI 100 of 56.9%. The corresponding week-24 rates in patients on 120 mg of sonelokinab every 8 weeks from week 12 on were 80.4%, 79.2%, and 40.4%, outcomes similar to those seen with secukinumab.

The rapidity of response to sonelokinab at 120 mg was striking, with approximately one-third of treated patients achieving a PASI 90 response by week 4.

“This could reflect the smaller molecular profile. There is possibly rapid increased absorption or bioavailability, quicker time to achieving serum half-life, better penetration into target tissue, and perhaps more effective engagement at the target. All of those things are possibilities. These are things that are yet to be explored, but it’s very enticing to see that uncharacteristically rapid initial response. It’s all very gratifying – and tantalizing,” Dr. Papp said in response to an audience question.

The safety profile of sonelokinab was reassuring. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis in 13.5% of patients and pruritus in 6.7%, with most cases being mild or moderate. As with other IL-17 blockers, there was an increase in oral candidiasis. This side effect appeared to occur in dose-dependent fashion: The incidence was zero in the 30-mg group, 1.9% with 60 mg, 3.8% with sonelokinab at 120 mg without an enhanced loading dose, and 5.9% with the enhanced loading dose.

The study was conducted by Avillion in partnership with Merck. Dr. Papp reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to those and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sonelokinab, an investigational interleukin-17A/F (IL-A/F)–targeted agent utilizing a novel therapeutic platform known as a nanobody, achieved exceptionally rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in moderate to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis in a phase 2b randomized trial, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A nanobody is a tiny antibody fragment with a much smaller molecular weight than the monoclonal antibodies utilized today in treating psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. The sonelokinab nanobody, derived from animals in the camel family, is a recombinant sequence-optimized nanobody specific for human IL-17F, IL-17A, the heterodimer IL-17A/F, and serum albumin. The binding to serum albumin give sonelokinab a lengthy half-life of 10-12 hours, which may be therapeutically relevant, explained Dr. Papp, president and founder of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

He presented the 24-week results of a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy randomized trial including 313 North American and European adults with an average 18-year history of psoriasis and a baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of about 21. They were randomized to one of six treatment arms for the first 12 weeks: subcutaneous injection of sonelokinab at 30, 60, or 120 mg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 8; enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab at 120 mg every 2 weeks through week 10; the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) at its standard dosing as an active comparator; or placebo. Data analysis was by rigorous nonresponder imputation, meaning anyone who didn’t complete the study was scored as a nonresponder.

“This yields a conservative data analysis somewhat biased against sonelokinab,” the dermatologist pointed out.

The primary outcome in the trial was the week-12 rate of an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, indicative of clear or almost clear skin. This was achieved in 88.2% of patients in the highest-dose arm of sonelokinab. That group also had a week-12 PASI 90 response rate of 76.5% and a PASI 100 response rate of 33.3%. By comparison, patients on standard-dose secukinumab had a less robust week-12 IGA 0/1 rate of 77.4%, a PASI 90 of 64.2%, and a PASI 100 of 28.3%. Of note, however, this secukinumab performance was better than seen in the 30-mg sonelokinab group, and comparable to outcomes with 60 mg of sonelokinab.

Dose escalation was performed from weeks 12-24. Patients with a week-12 IGA score greater than 1 after being on sonelokinab at 30 or 60 mg were upgraded to 120 mg at week 12 and again every 4 weeks thereafter. Placebo-treated controls were switched to 120 mg at weeks 12, 14, 16, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The group on the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab moved to 120 mg every 4 weeks, while those who had gotten four doses of sonelokinab at 120 mg during the first 12 weeks were switched to 120 mg every 8 weeks. The secukinumab group remained on the approved dosing through week 24.

At week 24, superior outcomes were seen in the enhanced–loading-dose sonelokinab group, with an IGA 0/1 response rate of 94.2%, a PASI 90 of 90.4%, and a PASI 100 of 56.9%. The corresponding week-24 rates in patients on 120 mg of sonelokinab every 8 weeks from week 12 on were 80.4%, 79.2%, and 40.4%, outcomes similar to those seen with secukinumab.

The rapidity of response to sonelokinab at 120 mg was striking, with approximately one-third of treated patients achieving a PASI 90 response by week 4.

“This could reflect the smaller molecular profile. There is possibly rapid increased absorption or bioavailability, quicker time to achieving serum half-life, better penetration into target tissue, and perhaps more effective engagement at the target. All of those things are possibilities. These are things that are yet to be explored, but it’s very enticing to see that uncharacteristically rapid initial response. It’s all very gratifying – and tantalizing,” Dr. Papp said in response to an audience question.

The safety profile of sonelokinab was reassuring. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis in 13.5% of patients and pruritus in 6.7%, with most cases being mild or moderate. As with other IL-17 blockers, there was an increase in oral candidiasis. This side effect appeared to occur in dose-dependent fashion: The incidence was zero in the 30-mg group, 1.9% with 60 mg, 3.8% with sonelokinab at 120 mg without an enhanced loading dose, and 5.9% with the enhanced loading dose.

The study was conducted by Avillion in partnership with Merck. Dr. Papp reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to those and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Large numbers of COVID-19 cases have been undetected and unreported, which has resulted in severe undercounting of the total number of people who have been infected during the pandemic, according to a new study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE.

In the United States, the number of COVID-19 cases is likely three times that of reported cases. According to the study, more than 71 million Americans have contracted the virus during the pandemic, and 7 million were infected or potentially contagious last week.

Public health officials rely on case counts to guide decisions, so the undercounting should be considered while trying to end the pandemic.

“The estimates of actual infections reveal for the first time the true severity of COVID-19 across the U.S. and in countries worldwide,” Jungsik Noh, PhD, a bioinformatics professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a statement.

Dr. Noh and colleague Gaudenz Danuser created a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual number of daily cases in the United States and the 50 most-infected countries.

The model pulls data from the Johns Hopkins University database and the COVID Tracking Project, as well as large-scale surveys conducted by the CDC and several states. The algorithm uses the number of reported deaths, which is thought to be more accurate than the number of lab-confirmed cases, as the basis for calculations.

In 25 of the 50 countries, the “actual” cumulative cases were estimated to be 5-20 times greater than the confirmed cases. In the United States, Belgium, and Brazil, about 10% of the population has contracted the coronavirus, according to the model. At the beginning of February, about 11% of the population in Pennsylvania had current infections, which was the highest rate of any state. About 0.15% of residents in Minnesota had infections, and about 2.5% of residents in New York and Texas had infections.

“Knowing the true severity in different regions will help us effectively fight against the virus spreading,” Dr. Noh said. “The currently infected population is the cause of future infections and deaths. Its actual size in a region is a crucial variable required when determining the severity of COVID-19 and building strategies against regional outbreaks.”

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

Large numbers of COVID-19 cases have been undetected and unreported, which has resulted in severe undercounting of the total number of people who have been infected during the pandemic, according to a new study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE.

In the United States, the number of COVID-19 cases is likely three times that of reported cases. According to the study, more than 71 million Americans have contracted the virus during the pandemic, and 7 million were infected or potentially contagious last week.

Public health officials rely on case counts to guide decisions, so the undercounting should be considered while trying to end the pandemic.

“The estimates of actual infections reveal for the first time the true severity of COVID-19 across the U.S. and in countries worldwide,” Jungsik Noh, PhD, a bioinformatics professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a statement.

Dr. Noh and colleague Gaudenz Danuser created a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual number of daily cases in the United States and the 50 most-infected countries.

The model pulls data from the Johns Hopkins University database and the COVID Tracking Project, as well as large-scale surveys conducted by the CDC and several states. The algorithm uses the number of reported deaths, which is thought to be more accurate than the number of lab-confirmed cases, as the basis for calculations.

In 25 of the 50 countries, the “actual” cumulative cases were estimated to be 5-20 times greater than the confirmed cases. In the United States, Belgium, and Brazil, about 10% of the population has contracted the coronavirus, according to the model. At the beginning of February, about 11% of the population in Pennsylvania had current infections, which was the highest rate of any state. About 0.15% of residents in Minnesota had infections, and about 2.5% of residents in New York and Texas had infections.

“Knowing the true severity in different regions will help us effectively fight against the virus spreading,” Dr. Noh said. “The currently infected population is the cause of future infections and deaths. Its actual size in a region is a crucial variable required when determining the severity of COVID-19 and building strategies against regional outbreaks.”

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

Large numbers of COVID-19 cases have been undetected and unreported, which has resulted in severe undercounting of the total number of people who have been infected during the pandemic, according to a new study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE.

In the United States, the number of COVID-19 cases is likely three times that of reported cases. According to the study, more than 71 million Americans have contracted the virus during the pandemic, and 7 million were infected or potentially contagious last week.

Public health officials rely on case counts to guide decisions, so the undercounting should be considered while trying to end the pandemic.

“The estimates of actual infections reveal for the first time the true severity of COVID-19 across the U.S. and in countries worldwide,” Jungsik Noh, PhD, a bioinformatics professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a statement.

Dr. Noh and colleague Gaudenz Danuser created a computational model that uses machine-learning strategies to estimate the actual number of daily cases in the United States and the 50 most-infected countries.

The model pulls data from the Johns Hopkins University database and the COVID Tracking Project, as well as large-scale surveys conducted by the CDC and several states. The algorithm uses the number of reported deaths, which is thought to be more accurate than the number of lab-confirmed cases, as the basis for calculations.

In 25 of the 50 countries, the “actual” cumulative cases were estimated to be 5-20 times greater than the confirmed cases. In the United States, Belgium, and Brazil, about 10% of the population has contracted the coronavirus, according to the model. At the beginning of February, about 11% of the population in Pennsylvania had current infections, which was the highest rate of any state. About 0.15% of residents in Minnesota had infections, and about 2.5% of residents in New York and Texas had infections.

“Knowing the true severity in different regions will help us effectively fight against the virus spreading,” Dr. Noh said. “The currently infected population is the cause of future infections and deaths. Its actual size in a region is a crucial variable required when determining the severity of COVID-19 and building strategies against regional outbreaks.”

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