Vaccines

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.¹ They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).² This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.³ In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.⁴ People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.⁵

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.^6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.^8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.¹⁰ This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.¹⁰

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.⁸

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.⁸

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.¹¹ These phases are:

• immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
• hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
• inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
• HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).¹¹

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.¹²

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”¹²

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.¹ The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.¹¹

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.^1,2

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.² The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.^1,8,13

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.¹ They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).² This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.³ In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.⁴ People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.⁵

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.^6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.^8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.¹⁰ This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.¹⁰

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.⁸

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.⁸

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.¹¹ These phases are:

• immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
• hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
• inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
• HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).¹¹

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.¹²

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”¹²

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.¹ The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.¹¹

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.^1,2

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.² The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.^1,8,13

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.¹ They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).² This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.³ In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.⁴ People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.⁵

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.^6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.^8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.¹⁰ This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.¹⁰

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.⁸

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.⁸

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.¹¹ These phases are:

• immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
• hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
• inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
• HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).¹¹

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.¹²

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”¹²

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.¹ The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.¹¹

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.^1,2

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.² The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.^1,8,13

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an injectable monoclonal antibody to protect newborns and infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The monoclonal antibody Beyfortus (nirsevimab-alip), which already is approved for use in Europe and Canada, is indicated for newborns and infants born during or entering their first RSV season, and for children up to 24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV through their second RSV season.

As many as 80,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized with an RSV infection annually in the United States. Most cases are mild, but infants under 6 months, those born prematurely, and children with weakened immune systems or neuromuscular disorders are at an increased risk for severe illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highly contagious virus is also a concern for immunocompromised adults and older people with underlying health conditions, who are at increased risk for severe disease.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca, which jointly developed the injectable agent, said in a press release that the companies plan to make it available by the fall of 2023. The long-acting antibody is given as a single intramuscular injection.

Beyfortus was approved in part based on data from the phase 3 MELODY trial, which found the shot reduced the incidence of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections associated with RSV by 74.9% versus placebo (95% confidence interval, 50.6-87.3; P < .001).

The phase 2/3 MEDLEY trial, conducted between July 2019 and May 2021, compared Beyfortus with palivizumab, another RSV antibody injection with more limited indications. The trial included more than 900 preterm infants less than 35 weeks’ gestational age and infants with congenital heart disease. Results were similar to the phase 3 MELODY trial, according to the manufacturers.

“Today’s approval marks an unprecedented moment for protecting infant health in the United States, following an RSV season that took a record toll on infants, their families, and the U.S. health care system,” said Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, in a press release about the FDA decision. “Beyfortus is the only monoclonal antibody approved for passive immunization to provide safe and effective protection for all infants during their first RSV season.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an injectable monoclonal antibody to protect newborns and infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The monoclonal antibody Beyfortus (nirsevimab-alip), which already is approved for use in Europe and Canada, is indicated for newborns and infants born during or entering their first RSV season, and for children up to 24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV through their second RSV season.

As many as 80,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized with an RSV infection annually in the United States. Most cases are mild, but infants under 6 months, those born prematurely, and children with weakened immune systems or neuromuscular disorders are at an increased risk for severe illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highly contagious virus is also a concern for immunocompromised adults and older people with underlying health conditions, who are at increased risk for severe disease.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca, which jointly developed the injectable agent, said in a press release that the companies plan to make it available by the fall of 2023. The long-acting antibody is given as a single intramuscular injection.

Beyfortus was approved in part based on data from the phase 3 MELODY trial, which found the shot reduced the incidence of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections associated with RSV by 74.9% versus placebo (95% confidence interval, 50.6-87.3; P < .001).

The phase 2/3 MEDLEY trial, conducted between July 2019 and May 2021, compared Beyfortus with palivizumab, another RSV antibody injection with more limited indications. The trial included more than 900 preterm infants less than 35 weeks’ gestational age and infants with congenital heart disease. Results were similar to the phase 3 MELODY trial, according to the manufacturers.

“Today’s approval marks an unprecedented moment for protecting infant health in the United States, following an RSV season that took a record toll on infants, their families, and the U.S. health care system,” said Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, in a press release about the FDA decision. “Beyfortus is the only monoclonal antibody approved for passive immunization to provide safe and effective protection for all infants during their first RSV season.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an injectable monoclonal antibody to protect newborns and infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The monoclonal antibody Beyfortus (nirsevimab-alip), which already is approved for use in Europe and Canada, is indicated for newborns and infants born during or entering their first RSV season, and for children up to 24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV through their second RSV season.

As many as 80,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized with an RSV infection annually in the United States. Most cases are mild, but infants under 6 months, those born prematurely, and children with weakened immune systems or neuromuscular disorders are at an increased risk for severe illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highly contagious virus is also a concern for immunocompromised adults and older people with underlying health conditions, who are at increased risk for severe disease.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca, which jointly developed the injectable agent, said in a press release that the companies plan to make it available by the fall of 2023. The long-acting antibody is given as a single intramuscular injection.

Beyfortus was approved in part based on data from the phase 3 MELODY trial, which found the shot reduced the incidence of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections associated with RSV by 74.9% versus placebo (95% confidence interval, 50.6-87.3; P < .001).

The phase 2/3 MEDLEY trial, conducted between July 2019 and May 2021, compared Beyfortus with palivizumab, another RSV antibody injection with more limited indications. The trial included more than 900 preterm infants less than 35 weeks’ gestational age and infants with congenital heart disease. Results were similar to the phase 3 MELODY trial, according to the manufacturers.

“Today’s approval marks an unprecedented moment for protecting infant health in the United States, following an RSV season that took a record toll on infants, their families, and the U.S. health care system,” said Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, in a press release about the FDA decision. “Beyfortus is the only monoclonal antibody approved for passive immunization to provide safe and effective protection for all infants during their first RSV season.”

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may now be as critical as ever, though young people are taking the shot in fewer and fewer numbers. An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.

HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.

HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop. 

Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute. 
 

Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine? 

Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.

Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”

Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
 

How safe is the HPV vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said. 

“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”

The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.

“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”

The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.

While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers. 
 

What is fueling the rise of HPV cases? 

A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.

“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”

A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.

“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
 

What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?

Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.

“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said. 

You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
 

How to reduce your risk

In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.

“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said. 

Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex. 

Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.

If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.

The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.

“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.  

To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.

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

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may now be as critical as ever, though young people are taking the shot in fewer and fewer numbers. An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.

HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.

HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop. 

Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute. 
 

Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine? 

Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.

Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”

Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
 

How safe is the HPV vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said. 

“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”

The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.

“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”

The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.

While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers. 
 

What is fueling the rise of HPV cases? 

A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.

“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”

A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.

“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
 

What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?

Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.

“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said. 

You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
 

How to reduce your risk

In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.

“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said. 

Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex. 

Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.

If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.

The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.

“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.  

To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.

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

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may now be as critical as ever, though young people are taking the shot in fewer and fewer numbers. An epidemic of sexually transmitted HPV is now swirling around the United States and the United Kingdom, with some serious cases leading to oropharyngeal cancer, which can affect the back of the throat, tonsils, and tongue.

HPV is the leading cause (70%) of this oropharyngeal cancer, according to the CDC. It is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the nation, and around 3.6% of women and 10% of men report oral HPV specifically. But over the past decade, oropharyngeal cases have been steadily falling a little under 4% and 2%, respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.

HPV is often undetectable and can clear up within a few months. But unfortunately for some, serious disease, such as throat cancer, can develop. 

Studies show the HPV vaccine to be extremely effective in lowering sexually transmitted HPV cases. Yet, only 54.5% of young people aged 13-15 have taken the recommended two to three doses, according to the National Cancer Institute. 
 

Why aren’t more young people taking the vaccine? 

Low public awareness of the dangers of HPV may be behind young people’s poor vaccination rates, according to Teresa Lee, MD, of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “For example, while the link with head and neck cancers has been well-studied, the FDA labeling was not changed to reflect this as an indication until 2020,” she said.

Other reasons can include one’s socioeconomic background, poor health literacy, cultural or religious stigmas around vaccines, and lack of quality, low-cost health care, says Emmanuel Aguh, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician. “Some individuals and families are still resistant to vaccines and the noted lack of uptake.”

Doctors and other health care professionals should also be sure to tell patients of all ages about the risks of HPV infection and how well the vaccine works, Dr. Lee said. “Not everyone who is now eligible may have been offered the vaccine as a child, and the first time young adults may receive counseling on this subject may not be until they are entering a very busy period of their lives with many responsibilities – when it may be hard to fit in things like health maintenance.”
 

How safe is the HPV vaccine?

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the HPV vaccine for years to find out how safe it is and how well it works, Dr. Aguh said. No major side effects have been reported, and the most common side effect is soreness where you get the shot (which is normal after most vaccines). Some dizziness and fainting in adolescents can also occur, so young people are usually asked to sit or lie down during the shot and for 15 minutes afterward, he said. 

“Serious adverse events have not been reported at higher rates than expected following HPV vaccination, meaning there is no clear evidence they are related to the vaccine,” Dr. Lee said. “The vaccine is highly effective in decreasing rates of detectable infection with the high-risk HPV strains responsible for HPV-associated cancers.”

The HPV vaccine is largely recommended for people aged 9-26, and sometimes up to age 45, depending on the individual, Dr. Aguh said. If you are over 26, talk to your doctor about whether you should consider getting the vaccine.

“It is usually given in two doses for complete protection if taken before the 15th birthday,” Dr. Aguh said. “If taken afterward, or in those with a weak immune system, they might require three doses to be fully protected.”

The vaccine produces antibodies that can stop HPV from infecting cells and lowers your chances of catching an HPV-related cancer, such as throat cancer or cancer of the cervix, he said.

While the vaccine is not guaranteed to protect you from the more than 100 strains of HPV, it can protect you from HPV 16 and HPV 18 – two high-risk strains that cause around 70% of cervical cancers. 
 

What is fueling the rise of HPV cases? 

A misconception that oral sex is somehow a “safe and risk-free” alternative to anal or vaginal sex could be one reason, Dr. Aguh said.

“It is important to know that, with oral sex, you are exposed to many of the risks associated with vaginal intercourse, especially if you do not take any measures to protect yourself and/or your partner,” Dr. Aguh said. “[With oral sex] it is possible to end up contracting an infection like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and even HPV, leading to an increased risk of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers.”

A lack of public awareness of what can cause throat cancer could also explain this phenomenon. The number of people you have oral sex with, along with the age you begin sexual activity, can greatly determine your risk of the disease, according to Dr. Lee. She echoes a report by Hisham Mehanna, PhD, in The Conversation.

“For oropharyngeal cancer, the main risk factor is the number of lifetime sexual partners, especially oral sex,” wrote Dr. Mehanna, a professor at the Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences at the University of Birmingham (England). “Those with six or more lifetime oral-sex partners are 8.5 times more likely to develop oropharyngeal cancer than those who do not practice oral sex.”
 

What are symptoms of oropharyngeal cancer?

Labored breathing or swallowing, a cough that won’t go away, and crackling or hoarseness of your voice could all be signs of throat cancer. Other symptoms include earaches, swelling of the head or neck, and enlarged lymph nodes, among others, Dr. Aguh said.

“The signs and symptoms of HPV-related throat cancers can be difficult to identify and recognize, as they can be vague and are also associated with other medical conditions. Sometimes, there are no signs at all, or they are not easily noticeable due to the location,” he said. 

You should go see your doctor if you have any of these ailments for an extended period.
 

How to reduce your risk

In addition to having six or more oral-sex partners, smoking and drinking heavily could also raise your risk of throat cancer, said Dr. Lee. Proper dental health – like seeing your dentist regularly and practicing proper oral hygiene – can also shave your risk.

“[Good dental health] can help not just with head and neck cancer risk, but with many other inflammation-related diseases,” Dr. Lee said. 

Using dental dams and condoms can also be a good method of protection, Dr. Aguh said. A dental dam is a stretchy sheet of latex, or polyurethane plastic, in the shape of a square that is made for blocking body fluid to lower your risk of contracting an STD via oral sex. 

Keep in mind: Even with these protections, make sure you and your partner discuss each other’s sexual history, any prior or current STDs and their preferred protection from STDs, said Dr. Aguh.

If you or your partner is being treated for an STD, consider opting out of oral sex and consulting a doctor.

The HPV vaccine is another common method of protection. The shot is “approved for prevention of nine of the most high-risk strains of HPV,” or those that are most commonly linked to cancer, according to Dr. Lee. The vaccine “reduces the frequency of infection” with these viruses, which can ultimately lower the risk of cancers linked to HPV, including cervical, anal, and vulvar and vaginal cancers, she said.

“The best time to receive treatment for prevention of disease is prior to onset of sexual intercourse,” said Dr. Lee.  

To get your HPV vaccine, head to your family doctor, school- or community-based health center, or state health department, suggests the CDC.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has given a green light to two new vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in older adults.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, agreed with and endorsed the recommendations made earlier by CDC advisors that people age 60 and over may get one of two new vaccines for RSV. Decisions should be made based on discussions with one’s health care provider about whether the vaccine is right for them, the federal health agency said.

The new vaccines, the first licensed in the United States to protect against the respiratory illness, are expected to be available this fall.

On June 21, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel, stopped short of recommending the vaccines for everyone age 65 and above, which was the original question the committee was to consider. The experts amended that question, changing it to whether the panel should recommend the vaccine for those 65 and above if the person and their doctor agreed. The committee voted 9 to 5 in favor.
 

RSV vaccines

RSV leads to 6,000 to 10,000 deaths a year in the United States among those age 65 and older and 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations in that group. Seniors and infants are among the most vulnerable to the lower respiratory infection, marked by runny nose, wheezing, sneezing, decreased appetite, and fever.

The FDA in May approved two vaccines — GSK’s Arexvy and Pfizer’s Abrysvo — for adults age 60 and above.

The vote recommending shared decision-making about the vaccine, instead of a routine vaccination recommended for all, “is a weaker recommendation,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Dr. Schaffner is a non-voting member of ACIP. He attended the meeting.

He said the experts voiced concern about a number of issues, including what some saw as a lack of sufficient data from trials on the most vulnerable groups, such as nursing home residents.

Experts also wanted more information about the duration of protection and exactly when a second dose might be needed. At the meeting, a GSK official said its vaccine was 84.6% effective after one and a half seasons, down from 94.1% after one season. A Pfizer official said its vaccine decreased the risk of RSV with three or more symptoms by 78.6% after a season and a half, down from 88.9% after one season.

The panel also wanted more data on whether the RSV vaccines could be administered at the same time as other vaccines recommended for adults.

Both companies gave a range of cost estimates. Pfizer expects its vaccine to cost $180 to $270 but said it could not guarantee that range. GSK said it expects a price of $200 to $295. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, recommended vaccines are covered under Medicare for those with Part D plans, which 51 million of 65 million Medicare patients have. Commercial insurance is likely to cover the vaccines if the CDC recommends them.

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

This article was updated 7/5/23.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has given a green light to two new vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in older adults.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, agreed with and endorsed the recommendations made earlier by CDC advisors that people age 60 and over may get one of two new vaccines for RSV. Decisions should be made based on discussions with one’s health care provider about whether the vaccine is right for them, the federal health agency said.

The new vaccines, the first licensed in the United States to protect against the respiratory illness, are expected to be available this fall.

On June 21, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel, stopped short of recommending the vaccines for everyone age 65 and above, which was the original question the committee was to consider. The experts amended that question, changing it to whether the panel should recommend the vaccine for those 65 and above if the person and their doctor agreed. The committee voted 9 to 5 in favor.
 

RSV vaccines

RSV leads to 6,000 to 10,000 deaths a year in the United States among those age 65 and older and 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations in that group. Seniors and infants are among the most vulnerable to the lower respiratory infection, marked by runny nose, wheezing, sneezing, decreased appetite, and fever.

The FDA in May approved two vaccines — GSK’s Arexvy and Pfizer’s Abrysvo — for adults age 60 and above.

The vote recommending shared decision-making about the vaccine, instead of a routine vaccination recommended for all, “is a weaker recommendation,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Dr. Schaffner is a non-voting member of ACIP. He attended the meeting.

He said the experts voiced concern about a number of issues, including what some saw as a lack of sufficient data from trials on the most vulnerable groups, such as nursing home residents.

Experts also wanted more information about the duration of protection and exactly when a second dose might be needed. At the meeting, a GSK official said its vaccine was 84.6% effective after one and a half seasons, down from 94.1% after one season. A Pfizer official said its vaccine decreased the risk of RSV with three or more symptoms by 78.6% after a season and a half, down from 88.9% after one season.

The panel also wanted more data on whether the RSV vaccines could be administered at the same time as other vaccines recommended for adults.

Both companies gave a range of cost estimates. Pfizer expects its vaccine to cost $180 to $270 but said it could not guarantee that range. GSK said it expects a price of $200 to $295. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, recommended vaccines are covered under Medicare for those with Part D plans, which 51 million of 65 million Medicare patients have. Commercial insurance is likely to cover the vaccines if the CDC recommends them.

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

This article was updated 7/5/23.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has given a green light to two new vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in older adults.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, agreed with and endorsed the recommendations made earlier by CDC advisors that people age 60 and over may get one of two new vaccines for RSV. Decisions should be made based on discussions with one’s health care provider about whether the vaccine is right for them, the federal health agency said.

The new vaccines, the first licensed in the United States to protect against the respiratory illness, are expected to be available this fall.

On June 21, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel, stopped short of recommending the vaccines for everyone age 65 and above, which was the original question the committee was to consider. The experts amended that question, changing it to whether the panel should recommend the vaccine for those 65 and above if the person and their doctor agreed. The committee voted 9 to 5 in favor.
 

RSV vaccines

RSV leads to 6,000 to 10,000 deaths a year in the United States among those age 65 and older and 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations in that group. Seniors and infants are among the most vulnerable to the lower respiratory infection, marked by runny nose, wheezing, sneezing, decreased appetite, and fever.

The FDA in May approved two vaccines — GSK’s Arexvy and Pfizer’s Abrysvo — for adults age 60 and above.

The vote recommending shared decision-making about the vaccine, instead of a routine vaccination recommended for all, “is a weaker recommendation,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Dr. Schaffner is a non-voting member of ACIP. He attended the meeting.

He said the experts voiced concern about a number of issues, including what some saw as a lack of sufficient data from trials on the most vulnerable groups, such as nursing home residents.

Experts also wanted more information about the duration of protection and exactly when a second dose might be needed. At the meeting, a GSK official said its vaccine was 84.6% effective after one and a half seasons, down from 94.1% after one season. A Pfizer official said its vaccine decreased the risk of RSV with three or more symptoms by 78.6% after a season and a half, down from 88.9% after one season.

The panel also wanted more data on whether the RSV vaccines could be administered at the same time as other vaccines recommended for adults.

Both companies gave a range of cost estimates. Pfizer expects its vaccine to cost $180 to $270 but said it could not guarantee that range. GSK said it expects a price of $200 to $295. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, recommended vaccines are covered under Medicare for those with Part D plans, which 51 million of 65 million Medicare patients have. Commercial insurance is likely to cover the vaccines if the CDC recommends them.

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

This article was updated 7/5/23.

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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

Compared with the complicated and ever-changing recommended vaccine schedule for infants and children, vaccines for adults have been straightforward. Adults without compromised immunity who received all their childhood vaccinations are eligible for a tetanus and diphtheria (Td) or tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster every 10 years, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine at age 50, and pneumococcal vaccines at age 65, along with annual influenza and (likely) COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, due to rising rates of acute hepatitis B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for adults aged 19-59 years without a record of previous hepatitis B infection or vaccination.

An additional routine vaccine for adults is now on the horizon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved Arexvy, a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for adults aged 60 years or older. Two more RSV vaccines are in the final stages of development. Why should family physicians prioritize vaccinating older adults against RSV, and how can we incorporate this new vaccine into our practices and overcome patient hesitancy to receive yet another vaccine?

Clinicians tend to think of RSV as a serious disease in young children – which it is – but data suggest that in 2019, RSV infection led to more than 100,000 hospitalizations and 7,700 deaths in older adults in the United States. In a randomized controlled trial of 25,000 adults aged 60 years or older with a median of 6.7 months of follow-up, Arexvy reduced severe RSV disease by 94% and RSV-related acute respiratory infections by 71%, with similar effectiveness in adults with underlying health conditions. That’s considerably better protection than current influenza vaccines and comparable to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines before variants became widespread. Pain and fatigue were the most common side effects and usually resolved within 1-2 days.

Although the seasonal pattern of RSV shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic, RSV season historically begins in October, peaks in December, and ends in April. If the vaccine is recommended by the CDC and is widely available by fall, as the manufacturer, GSK, expects, it could be administered around the same time as influenza and COVID-19 vaccines.

The challenges of incorporating this new vaccine into practice will feel familiar: Many of our patients won’t have heard about it, may feel that they don’t need it, or may decline it because of concerns about side effects, real or imagined. (Of note, the FDA is requiring GSK to perform a postmarketing study to rule out associations with rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and the company also plans to monitor the incidence of atrial fibrillation, which was slightly more common in the vaccine group than the placebo group.)

While a strong recommendation from a family physician is often enough to convince patients to accept vaccination, rampant misinformation during the pandemic may have worsened vaccine hesitancy for some. It may feel like a fruitless exercise to try to convince adults who have refused COVID-19 and influenza vaccines to accept a newer vaccine against a respiratory virus that causes less serious illness overall. But with other RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for older adults and infants likely to be approved soon, it’s important for us to start laying the groundwork now by educating colleagues, staff, and patients about preventing serious illness caused by RSV.

Dr. Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Georgetown University and a staff physician atMedStar Health Center, both in Washington. He has received income from UpToDate, Wiley-Blackwell, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

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