User login
Updated Moderna booster shows greater activity against COVID in adults
WASHINGTON –
The bivalent booster was superior regardless of age and whether a person had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged.
Spyros Chalkias, MD, senior medical director of clinical development at Moderna, presented the data during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
In the phase 2/3 trial, participants received either 50 mcg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 mcg each of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 mcg of the standard authorized mRNA-1273. The doses were given as second boosters in adults who had previously received a two-dose primary series and a first booster at least 3 months before.
The model-based geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio of the enhanced booster compared with the standard booster was 1.74 (1.49-2.04), meeting the prespecified bar for superiority against Omicron BA.1.
In participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received updated booster doses and those who received standard boosters, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 and 1473.5, respectively.
Additionally, the updated booster elicited higher GMTs (727.4) than the standard booster (492.1) against Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5. Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups.
“By the end of this year, we expect to also have clinical trial data from our BA.4/BA.5 bivalent booster,” Dr. Chalkias said.
In the interim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorization for Moderna’s BA.4/BA.5 Omicron-targeting bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years.
Pfizer/BioNTech also has recently issued an announcement that their COVID-19 booster, adapted for the BA.4 and the BA.5 Omicron subvariants, generated a strong immune response and was well tolerated in human tests.
Pfizer/BioNTech said data from roughly 80 adult patients showed that the booster led to a substantial increase in neutralizing antibody levels against the BA.4/BA.5 variants after 1 week.
Separate study of causes of severe breakthrough infections in early vaccine formulations
Though COVID vaccines reduce the incidence of severe outcomes, there are reports of breakthrough infections in persons who received the original vaccines, and some of these have been serious.
In a separate study, also presented at the meeting, researchers led by first author Austin D. Vo, BS, with the VA Boston Healthcare System, used data collected from Dec. 15, 2020, through Feb. 28, 2022, in a U.S. veteran population to assess those at highest risk for severe disease despite vaccination.
Results of the large, nationwide retrospective study were simultaneously published in JAMA Network Open.
The primary outcome was development of severe COVID, defined as a hospitalization within 14 days of a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test, receipt of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days.
Among 110,760 participants with severe disease after primary vaccination, 13% (14,690) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 or died.
The strongest risk factor for severe disease despite vaccination was age, the researchers found.
Presenting author Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, associate professor of medicine with VA Boston Healthcare System, said, “We found that age greater than 50 was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 for every 5-year increase.”
To put that in perspective, she said, “compared to patients who are 45 to 50, those over 80 had an adjusted odds ratio of 16 for hospitalization or death following breakthrough infection.”
Priya Nori, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in an interview that the evidence that age is a strong risk factor for severe disease – even after vaccination – confirms that attention should be focused on those in the highest age groups, particularly those 80 years and older.
Other top risk factors included having immunocompromising conditions; having received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.21); having leukemias/lymphomas (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.14); and having chronic conditions associated with end-organ disease.
“We also found that receipt of an additional booster dose of vaccine was associated with a 50% reduction in adjusted odds of severe disease,” noted Dr. Branch-Elliman.
Dr. Nori emphasized that, given these data, emphatic messaging is needed to encourage uptake of the updated Omicron-targeted vaccines for these high-risk age groups.
The study by Dr. Chalkias and colleagues was funded by Moderna. Dr. Chalkias and several coauthors are employed by Moderna. One coauthor has relationships with DLA Piper/Medtronic, and Gilead Pharmaceuticals, and one has relationships with Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, Gilead, and Kiniksa. Dr. Nori has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON –
The bivalent booster was superior regardless of age and whether a person had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged.
Spyros Chalkias, MD, senior medical director of clinical development at Moderna, presented the data during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
In the phase 2/3 trial, participants received either 50 mcg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 mcg each of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 mcg of the standard authorized mRNA-1273. The doses were given as second boosters in adults who had previously received a two-dose primary series and a first booster at least 3 months before.
The model-based geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio of the enhanced booster compared with the standard booster was 1.74 (1.49-2.04), meeting the prespecified bar for superiority against Omicron BA.1.
In participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received updated booster doses and those who received standard boosters, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 and 1473.5, respectively.
Additionally, the updated booster elicited higher GMTs (727.4) than the standard booster (492.1) against Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5. Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups.
“By the end of this year, we expect to also have clinical trial data from our BA.4/BA.5 bivalent booster,” Dr. Chalkias said.
In the interim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorization for Moderna’s BA.4/BA.5 Omicron-targeting bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years.
Pfizer/BioNTech also has recently issued an announcement that their COVID-19 booster, adapted for the BA.4 and the BA.5 Omicron subvariants, generated a strong immune response and was well tolerated in human tests.
Pfizer/BioNTech said data from roughly 80 adult patients showed that the booster led to a substantial increase in neutralizing antibody levels against the BA.4/BA.5 variants after 1 week.
Separate study of causes of severe breakthrough infections in early vaccine formulations
Though COVID vaccines reduce the incidence of severe outcomes, there are reports of breakthrough infections in persons who received the original vaccines, and some of these have been serious.
In a separate study, also presented at the meeting, researchers led by first author Austin D. Vo, BS, with the VA Boston Healthcare System, used data collected from Dec. 15, 2020, through Feb. 28, 2022, in a U.S. veteran population to assess those at highest risk for severe disease despite vaccination.
Results of the large, nationwide retrospective study were simultaneously published in JAMA Network Open.
The primary outcome was development of severe COVID, defined as a hospitalization within 14 days of a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test, receipt of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days.
Among 110,760 participants with severe disease after primary vaccination, 13% (14,690) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 or died.
The strongest risk factor for severe disease despite vaccination was age, the researchers found.
Presenting author Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, associate professor of medicine with VA Boston Healthcare System, said, “We found that age greater than 50 was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 for every 5-year increase.”
To put that in perspective, she said, “compared to patients who are 45 to 50, those over 80 had an adjusted odds ratio of 16 for hospitalization or death following breakthrough infection.”
Priya Nori, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in an interview that the evidence that age is a strong risk factor for severe disease – even after vaccination – confirms that attention should be focused on those in the highest age groups, particularly those 80 years and older.
Other top risk factors included having immunocompromising conditions; having received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.21); having leukemias/lymphomas (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.14); and having chronic conditions associated with end-organ disease.
“We also found that receipt of an additional booster dose of vaccine was associated with a 50% reduction in adjusted odds of severe disease,” noted Dr. Branch-Elliman.
Dr. Nori emphasized that, given these data, emphatic messaging is needed to encourage uptake of the updated Omicron-targeted vaccines for these high-risk age groups.
The study by Dr. Chalkias and colleagues was funded by Moderna. Dr. Chalkias and several coauthors are employed by Moderna. One coauthor has relationships with DLA Piper/Medtronic, and Gilead Pharmaceuticals, and one has relationships with Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, Gilead, and Kiniksa. Dr. Nori has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON –
The bivalent booster was superior regardless of age and whether a person had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged.
Spyros Chalkias, MD, senior medical director of clinical development at Moderna, presented the data during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
In the phase 2/3 trial, participants received either 50 mcg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 mcg each of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 mcg of the standard authorized mRNA-1273. The doses were given as second boosters in adults who had previously received a two-dose primary series and a first booster at least 3 months before.
The model-based geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio of the enhanced booster compared with the standard booster was 1.74 (1.49-2.04), meeting the prespecified bar for superiority against Omicron BA.1.
In participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received updated booster doses and those who received standard boosters, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 and 1473.5, respectively.
Additionally, the updated booster elicited higher GMTs (727.4) than the standard booster (492.1) against Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5. Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups.
“By the end of this year, we expect to also have clinical trial data from our BA.4/BA.5 bivalent booster,” Dr. Chalkias said.
In the interim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorization for Moderna’s BA.4/BA.5 Omicron-targeting bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years.
Pfizer/BioNTech also has recently issued an announcement that their COVID-19 booster, adapted for the BA.4 and the BA.5 Omicron subvariants, generated a strong immune response and was well tolerated in human tests.
Pfizer/BioNTech said data from roughly 80 adult patients showed that the booster led to a substantial increase in neutralizing antibody levels against the BA.4/BA.5 variants after 1 week.
Separate study of causes of severe breakthrough infections in early vaccine formulations
Though COVID vaccines reduce the incidence of severe outcomes, there are reports of breakthrough infections in persons who received the original vaccines, and some of these have been serious.
In a separate study, also presented at the meeting, researchers led by first author Austin D. Vo, BS, with the VA Boston Healthcare System, used data collected from Dec. 15, 2020, through Feb. 28, 2022, in a U.S. veteran population to assess those at highest risk for severe disease despite vaccination.
Results of the large, nationwide retrospective study were simultaneously published in JAMA Network Open.
The primary outcome was development of severe COVID, defined as a hospitalization within 14 days of a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test, receipt of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days.
Among 110,760 participants with severe disease after primary vaccination, 13% (14,690) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 or died.
The strongest risk factor for severe disease despite vaccination was age, the researchers found.
Presenting author Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, associate professor of medicine with VA Boston Healthcare System, said, “We found that age greater than 50 was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 for every 5-year increase.”
To put that in perspective, she said, “compared to patients who are 45 to 50, those over 80 had an adjusted odds ratio of 16 for hospitalization or death following breakthrough infection.”
Priya Nori, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in an interview that the evidence that age is a strong risk factor for severe disease – even after vaccination – confirms that attention should be focused on those in the highest age groups, particularly those 80 years and older.
Other top risk factors included having immunocompromising conditions; having received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.21); having leukemias/lymphomas (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.14); and having chronic conditions associated with end-organ disease.
“We also found that receipt of an additional booster dose of vaccine was associated with a 50% reduction in adjusted odds of severe disease,” noted Dr. Branch-Elliman.
Dr. Nori emphasized that, given these data, emphatic messaging is needed to encourage uptake of the updated Omicron-targeted vaccines for these high-risk age groups.
The study by Dr. Chalkias and colleagues was funded by Moderna. Dr. Chalkias and several coauthors are employed by Moderna. One coauthor has relationships with DLA Piper/Medtronic, and Gilead Pharmaceuticals, and one has relationships with Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, ChemoCentryx, Gilead, and Kiniksa. Dr. Nori has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT IDWEEK 2022
25 years of chickenpox vaccine: 91 million cases prevented
WASHINGTON – In the 25 years since the United States first launched its universal vaccinations program to protect children against chickenpox (varicella), the program has seen dramatic results, a data analysis indicates.
Results from 1995 – when universal vaccinations began – through 2019 were presented an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases by Mona Marin, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers analyzed published data and surveillance data reported to the CDC.
Deaths in under-20 group all but eliminated
Immunocompromised people or pregnant women and infants too young to be vaccinated also benefited from the children’s immunizations.
Each year, about 3.8 million cases, 10,500 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths from chickenpox are prevented in the United States thanks to the vaccination program, Dr. Marin said.
Over 25 years, 91 million cases, 238,000 hospitalizations, and 1,933 – 2,446 deaths have been prevented.
However, chickenpox is still widespread in most of the world.
U.S. first with universal program
The disease was thought to be of little consequence, Dr. Marin said, until the mid-1950s after the first cases of fatal varicella in immunocompromised children revealed the virus’ lethal potential.
The United States was the first country to introduce a universal vaccination program, Dr. Marin said. At the time, it was a one-dose vaccine. Within the first 10 years of the one-dose program, declines in chickenpox cases, hospitalization, and death rates went from 71% to 90% in comparison with previous years. But health care leaders wanted to close the remaining gap and target transmission in schools.
“It was a burden the United States considered unacceptable,” Dr. Marin said.
The leaders had seen the control of measles and polio and wanted the same for chickenpox.
Two-dose vaccines started in 2007
In 2007, the current two-dose policy was introduced. Administration of the first dose is recommended at age 12–15 months, and the second at age 4–6 years. Vaccination is required before the children enter kindergarten.
Coverage was high – at least 90% – the study authors reported; the two-dose program further reduced the number, size, and duration of outbreaks. Over the 25 years, the proportion of outbreaks with fewer than 10 cases increased from 28% to 73%.
By 2019, incidence had dropped by 97%, hospitalizations were down by 94%, and deaths had dropped by 97%.
The biggest decline was seen in those younger than 20, who were born during the vaccination program. That group saw declines of 97% to 99% in cases, hospitalizations, and incidence compared with rates before vaccinations.
Dr. Marin says one dose of the vaccine is moderately effective in preventing all varicella (82%) and is highly effective in preventing severe varicella (more than 97%).
“The second dose adds 10% or more improved protection against all varicella,” she said.
But there have been gains beyond medical advances.
Researchers calculated the economic benefit and found a net savings of $23 billion in medical costs (which also factored in lost wages from parents staying home to care for sick children).
Jaw-dropping results
Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview that “as someone who is not a vaccinologist, the declines in deaths, let alone hospitalizations, were jaw-dropping. I hadn’t really seen a synthesis of the impact of one and two doses.”
She said the declines in zoster among young people were interesting. The big question, she said, is what impact this may have for shingles infections in middle-aged adults over time, since chickenpox and shingles are caused by the same virus.
Dr. Marrazzo also noted the economic savings calculations.
“It’s such a cheap intervention. It’s one of the best examples of how a simple vaccine can affect a cascade of events that are a result of chronic viral infection,” she said.
There are also messages for the current debates over COVID-19 vaccinations.
“For me, it is further evidence of the profound population-level effect safe vaccines can have,” Dr. Marrazzo said.
The authors and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – In the 25 years since the United States first launched its universal vaccinations program to protect children against chickenpox (varicella), the program has seen dramatic results, a data analysis indicates.
Results from 1995 – when universal vaccinations began – through 2019 were presented an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases by Mona Marin, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers analyzed published data and surveillance data reported to the CDC.
Deaths in under-20 group all but eliminated
Immunocompromised people or pregnant women and infants too young to be vaccinated also benefited from the children’s immunizations.
Each year, about 3.8 million cases, 10,500 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths from chickenpox are prevented in the United States thanks to the vaccination program, Dr. Marin said.
Over 25 years, 91 million cases, 238,000 hospitalizations, and 1,933 – 2,446 deaths have been prevented.
However, chickenpox is still widespread in most of the world.
U.S. first with universal program
The disease was thought to be of little consequence, Dr. Marin said, until the mid-1950s after the first cases of fatal varicella in immunocompromised children revealed the virus’ lethal potential.
The United States was the first country to introduce a universal vaccination program, Dr. Marin said. At the time, it was a one-dose vaccine. Within the first 10 years of the one-dose program, declines in chickenpox cases, hospitalization, and death rates went from 71% to 90% in comparison with previous years. But health care leaders wanted to close the remaining gap and target transmission in schools.
“It was a burden the United States considered unacceptable,” Dr. Marin said.
The leaders had seen the control of measles and polio and wanted the same for chickenpox.
Two-dose vaccines started in 2007
In 2007, the current two-dose policy was introduced. Administration of the first dose is recommended at age 12–15 months, and the second at age 4–6 years. Vaccination is required before the children enter kindergarten.
Coverage was high – at least 90% – the study authors reported; the two-dose program further reduced the number, size, and duration of outbreaks. Over the 25 years, the proportion of outbreaks with fewer than 10 cases increased from 28% to 73%.
By 2019, incidence had dropped by 97%, hospitalizations were down by 94%, and deaths had dropped by 97%.
The biggest decline was seen in those younger than 20, who were born during the vaccination program. That group saw declines of 97% to 99% in cases, hospitalizations, and incidence compared with rates before vaccinations.
Dr. Marin says one dose of the vaccine is moderately effective in preventing all varicella (82%) and is highly effective in preventing severe varicella (more than 97%).
“The second dose adds 10% or more improved protection against all varicella,” she said.
But there have been gains beyond medical advances.
Researchers calculated the economic benefit and found a net savings of $23 billion in medical costs (which also factored in lost wages from parents staying home to care for sick children).
Jaw-dropping results
Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview that “as someone who is not a vaccinologist, the declines in deaths, let alone hospitalizations, were jaw-dropping. I hadn’t really seen a synthesis of the impact of one and two doses.”
She said the declines in zoster among young people were interesting. The big question, she said, is what impact this may have for shingles infections in middle-aged adults over time, since chickenpox and shingles are caused by the same virus.
Dr. Marrazzo also noted the economic savings calculations.
“It’s such a cheap intervention. It’s one of the best examples of how a simple vaccine can affect a cascade of events that are a result of chronic viral infection,” she said.
There are also messages for the current debates over COVID-19 vaccinations.
“For me, it is further evidence of the profound population-level effect safe vaccines can have,” Dr. Marrazzo said.
The authors and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – In the 25 years since the United States first launched its universal vaccinations program to protect children against chickenpox (varicella), the program has seen dramatic results, a data analysis indicates.
Results from 1995 – when universal vaccinations began – through 2019 were presented an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases by Mona Marin, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers analyzed published data and surveillance data reported to the CDC.
Deaths in under-20 group all but eliminated
Immunocompromised people or pregnant women and infants too young to be vaccinated also benefited from the children’s immunizations.
Each year, about 3.8 million cases, 10,500 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths from chickenpox are prevented in the United States thanks to the vaccination program, Dr. Marin said.
Over 25 years, 91 million cases, 238,000 hospitalizations, and 1,933 – 2,446 deaths have been prevented.
However, chickenpox is still widespread in most of the world.
U.S. first with universal program
The disease was thought to be of little consequence, Dr. Marin said, until the mid-1950s after the first cases of fatal varicella in immunocompromised children revealed the virus’ lethal potential.
The United States was the first country to introduce a universal vaccination program, Dr. Marin said. At the time, it was a one-dose vaccine. Within the first 10 years of the one-dose program, declines in chickenpox cases, hospitalization, and death rates went from 71% to 90% in comparison with previous years. But health care leaders wanted to close the remaining gap and target transmission in schools.
“It was a burden the United States considered unacceptable,” Dr. Marin said.
The leaders had seen the control of measles and polio and wanted the same for chickenpox.
Two-dose vaccines started in 2007
In 2007, the current two-dose policy was introduced. Administration of the first dose is recommended at age 12–15 months, and the second at age 4–6 years. Vaccination is required before the children enter kindergarten.
Coverage was high – at least 90% – the study authors reported; the two-dose program further reduced the number, size, and duration of outbreaks. Over the 25 years, the proportion of outbreaks with fewer than 10 cases increased from 28% to 73%.
By 2019, incidence had dropped by 97%, hospitalizations were down by 94%, and deaths had dropped by 97%.
The biggest decline was seen in those younger than 20, who were born during the vaccination program. That group saw declines of 97% to 99% in cases, hospitalizations, and incidence compared with rates before vaccinations.
Dr. Marin says one dose of the vaccine is moderately effective in preventing all varicella (82%) and is highly effective in preventing severe varicella (more than 97%).
“The second dose adds 10% or more improved protection against all varicella,” she said.
But there have been gains beyond medical advances.
Researchers calculated the economic benefit and found a net savings of $23 billion in medical costs (which also factored in lost wages from parents staying home to care for sick children).
Jaw-dropping results
Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview that “as someone who is not a vaccinologist, the declines in deaths, let alone hospitalizations, were jaw-dropping. I hadn’t really seen a synthesis of the impact of one and two doses.”
She said the declines in zoster among young people were interesting. The big question, she said, is what impact this may have for shingles infections in middle-aged adults over time, since chickenpox and shingles are caused by the same virus.
Dr. Marrazzo also noted the economic savings calculations.
“It’s such a cheap intervention. It’s one of the best examples of how a simple vaccine can affect a cascade of events that are a result of chronic viral infection,” she said.
There are also messages for the current debates over COVID-19 vaccinations.
“For me, it is further evidence of the profound population-level effect safe vaccines can have,” Dr. Marrazzo said.
The authors and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT IDWEEK 2022
Ten-day methotrexate pause after COVID vaccine booster enhances immunity against Omicron variant
People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.
“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”
The study, published online in RMD Open, included a statistical analysis that determined that a 10-day pause after the vaccination would be optimal, Dr. Burmester said.
Dr. Burmester and coauthors claimed this is the first study to evaluate the antibody response in patients on methotrexate against Omicron variants – in this study, variants BA.1 and BA.2 – after getting a COVID-19 mRNA booster. The study compared neutralizing serum activity of 50 patients taking methotrexate – 24 of whom continued treatments uninterrupted and 26 of whom paused treatments after getting a second booster – with 25 nonimmunosuppressed patients who served as controls. A total of 24% of the patients taking methotrexate received the mRNA-1273 vaccine while the entire control group received the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine.
The researchers used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate post-vaccination antibody levels.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government health agencies have recommended that immunocompromised patients get a fourth COVID-19 vaccination. But these vaccines can be problematic in patients taking methotrexate, which was linked to a reduced response after the second and third doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Previous studies reported that pausing methotrexate for 10 or 14 days after the first two vaccinations improved the production of neutralizing antibodies. A 2022 study found that a 2-week pause after a booster increased antibody response against S1 RBD (receptor binding domain) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein about twofold. Another recently published study of mRNA vaccines found that taking methotrexate with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug reduces the efficacy of a third (booster) shot of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in older adults but not younger patients with RA.
“Our study and also the other studies suggested that you can pause methotrexate treatment safely from a point of view of disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Burmester said. “If you do the pause just twice or once only, it doesn’t lead to significant flares.”
Study results
The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).
The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.
The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
Expert commentary
This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”
The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.
“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”
The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.
“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”
The study, published online in RMD Open, included a statistical analysis that determined that a 10-day pause after the vaccination would be optimal, Dr. Burmester said.
Dr. Burmester and coauthors claimed this is the first study to evaluate the antibody response in patients on methotrexate against Omicron variants – in this study, variants BA.1 and BA.2 – after getting a COVID-19 mRNA booster. The study compared neutralizing serum activity of 50 patients taking methotrexate – 24 of whom continued treatments uninterrupted and 26 of whom paused treatments after getting a second booster – with 25 nonimmunosuppressed patients who served as controls. A total of 24% of the patients taking methotrexate received the mRNA-1273 vaccine while the entire control group received the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine.
The researchers used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate post-vaccination antibody levels.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government health agencies have recommended that immunocompromised patients get a fourth COVID-19 vaccination. But these vaccines can be problematic in patients taking methotrexate, which was linked to a reduced response after the second and third doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Previous studies reported that pausing methotrexate for 10 or 14 days after the first two vaccinations improved the production of neutralizing antibodies. A 2022 study found that a 2-week pause after a booster increased antibody response against S1 RBD (receptor binding domain) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein about twofold. Another recently published study of mRNA vaccines found that taking methotrexate with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug reduces the efficacy of a third (booster) shot of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in older adults but not younger patients with RA.
“Our study and also the other studies suggested that you can pause methotrexate treatment safely from a point of view of disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Burmester said. “If you do the pause just twice or once only, it doesn’t lead to significant flares.”
Study results
The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).
The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.
The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
Expert commentary
This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”
The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.
“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”
The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People taking methotrexate for immunomodulatory diseases can skip one or two scheduled doses after they get an mRNA-based vaccine booster for COVID-19 and achieve a level of immunity against Omicron variants that’s comparable to people who aren’t immunosuppressed, a small observational cohort study from Germany reported.
“In general, the data suggest that pausing methotrexate is feasible, and it’s sufficient if the last dose occurs 1-3 days before the vaccination,” study coauthor Gerd Burmester, MD, a senior professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Medicine Berlin, told this news organization. “In pragmatic terms: pausing the methotrexate injection just twice after the vaccine is finished and, interestingly, not prior to the vaccination.”
The study, published online in RMD Open, included a statistical analysis that determined that a 10-day pause after the vaccination would be optimal, Dr. Burmester said.
Dr. Burmester and coauthors claimed this is the first study to evaluate the antibody response in patients on methotrexate against Omicron variants – in this study, variants BA.1 and BA.2 – after getting a COVID-19 mRNA booster. The study compared neutralizing serum activity of 50 patients taking methotrexate – 24 of whom continued treatments uninterrupted and 26 of whom paused treatments after getting a second booster – with 25 nonimmunosuppressed patients who served as controls. A total of 24% of the patients taking methotrexate received the mRNA-1273 vaccine while the entire control group received the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine.
The researchers used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate post-vaccination antibody levels.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other government health agencies have recommended that immunocompromised patients get a fourth COVID-19 vaccination. But these vaccines can be problematic in patients taking methotrexate, which was linked to a reduced response after the second and third doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Previous studies reported that pausing methotrexate for 10 or 14 days after the first two vaccinations improved the production of neutralizing antibodies. A 2022 study found that a 2-week pause after a booster increased antibody response against S1 RBD (receptor binding domain) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein about twofold. Another recently published study of mRNA vaccines found that taking methotrexate with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug reduces the efficacy of a third (booster) shot of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in older adults but not younger patients with RA.
“Our study and also the other studies suggested that you can pause methotrexate treatment safely from a point of view of disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Burmester said. “If you do the pause just twice or once only, it doesn’t lead to significant flares.”
Study results
The study found that serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.1 variant, measured as geometric mean 50% inhibitory serum dilution (ID50s), wasn’t significantly different between the methotrexate and the nonimmunosuppressed groups before getting their mRNA booster (P = .657). However, 4 weeks after getting the booster, the nonimmunosuppressed group had a 68-fold increase in antibody activity versus a 20-fold increase in the methotrexate patients. After 12 weeks, ID50s in both groups decreased by about half (P = .001).
The methotrexate patients who continued therapy after the booster had significantly lower neutralization against Omicron BA.1 at both 4 weeks and 12 weeks than did their counterparts who paused therapy, as well as control patients.
The results were very similar in the same group comparisons of the serum neutralizing activity against the Omicron BA.2 variant at 4 and 12 weeks after booster vaccination.
Expert commentary
This study is noteworthy because it used SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays to evaluate antibody levels, Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study, said. “A lot of studies don’t look at neutralizing antibody titers, and that’s really what we care about,” Dr. Winthrop said. “What we want are functional antibodies that are doing something, and the only way to do that is to test them.”
The study is “confirmatory” of other studies that call for pausing methotrexate after vaccination, Dr. Winthrop said, including a study he coauthored, and which the German researchers cited, that found pausing methotrexate for a week or so after the influenza vaccination in RA patients improved vaccine immunogenicity. He added that the findings with the early Omicron variants are important because the newest boosters target the later Omicron variants, BA.4 and BA.5.
“The bottom line is that when someone comes in for a COVID-19 vaccination, tell them to be off of methotrexate for 7-10 days,” Dr. Winthrop said. “This is for the booster, but it raises the question: If you go out to three, four, or five vaccinations, does this matter anymore? With the flu vaccine, most people are out to 10 or 15 boosters, and we haven’t seen any significant increase in disease flares.”
The study received funding from Medac, Gilead/Galapagos, and Friends and Sponsors of Berlin Charity. Dr. Burmester reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Winthrop is a research consultant to Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM RMD OPEN
Vaccine adherence hinges on improving science communication
“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”
We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.
News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.
Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.
Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.
As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.
Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.
As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.
Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”
We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.
News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.
Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.
Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.
As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.
Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.
As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.
Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I’m not getting the vaccine. Nobody knows the long-term effects, and I heard that people are getting clots.”
We were screening patients at a low-cost clinic in Philadelphia for concerns surrounding social determinants of health. During one patient visit, in addition to concerns including housing, medication affordability, and transportation, we found that she had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, and we asked if she was interested in being immunized.
News reports have endlessly covered antivaccine sentiment, but this personal encounter hit home. From simple face masks to groundbreaking vaccines, we failed as physicians to encourage widespread uptake of health-protective measures despite strong scientific backing.
Large swaths of the public deny these tools’ importance or question their safety. This is ultimately rooted in the inability of community leaders and health care professionals to communicate with the public.
Science communication is inherently difficult. Scientists use complex language, and it is hard to evaluate the lay public’s baseline knowledge. Moreover, we are trained to speak with qualifications, encourage doubt, and accept change and evolution of fact. These qualities contrast the definitive messaging necessary in public settings. COVID-19 highlighted these gaps, where regardless of novel scientific solutions, poor communication led to a resistance to accept the tested scientific solution, which ultimately was the rate-limiting factor for overcoming the virus.
As directors of Physician Executive Leadership, an organization that trains future physicians at Thomas Jefferson University to tackle emerging health care issues, we hosted Paul Offit, MD, a national media figure and vaccine advocate. Dr. Offit shared his personal growth during the pandemic, from being abruptly thrown into the spotlight to eventually honing his communication skills. Dr. Offit discussed the challenges of sharing medical knowledge with laypeople and adaptations that are necessary. We found this transformative, realizing the importance of science communication training early in medical education.
Emphasizing the humanities and building soft skills will improve outcomes and benefit broader society by producing physician-leaders in public health and policy. We hope to improve our own communication skills and work in medical education to incorporate similar training into education paradigms for future students.
As seen in our patient interaction, strong science alone will not drive patient adherence; instead, we must work at personal and system levels to induce change. Physicians have a unique opportunity to generate trust and guide evidence-based policy. We must communicate, whether one-on-one with patients, or to millions of viewers via media or policymaker settings. We hope to not only be doctors, but to be advocates, leaders, and trusted advisers for the public.
Mr. Kieran and Mr. Shah are second-year medical students at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. Neither disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
You and the skeptical patient: Who’s the doctor here?
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination tied to lower mortality in ventilated patients with COVID-19
Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.
The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.
Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).
In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.
“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.
Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.
The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.
The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.
The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.
Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).
In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.
“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.
Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.
The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.
The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although COVID-19 vaccination has been demonstrated to be effective at preventing infection, breakthrough infections occur, write Eirini Grapsa, RN, of Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Greece, and colleagues. The potential protective benefits of vaccination for patients who experience these breakthrough infections, especially cases severe enough to require hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation, have not been well studied, the investigators say.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 265 consecutive patients older than 18 years who were admitted to intensive care units at three tertiary care centers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections between June 7, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022. All patients in the study received invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients were divided into two groups: 26 patients were in the full vaccination group, and 239 served as control patients. Full vaccination was defined as having completed the primary COVID-19 series more than 14 days but less than 5 months before intubation. The control group included patients who had been fully vaccinated for less than 14 days or more than 5 months, were partially vaccinated, or were not vaccinated. A total of 20 of 26 patients in the full vaccination group received the Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, as did 25 of the 33 vaccinated patients in the control group.
The median age of the patients overall was 66 years; 36% were women, and 99% were White. Patients in the full vaccination group were more likely to be older and to have comorbidities. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause mortality.
Overall, mortality was lower among the patients with full vaccination status than among those in the control group (61.5% vs. 68.2%; P = .03). Full vaccination also was associated with lower mortality in sensitivity analyses that included (a) only patients who received an mRNA vaccine in the full vaccination group, and (b) only unvaccinated patients in the control group (hazard ratios, 0.47 and 0.54, respectively).
In a regression model that examined secondary outcomes, the HR was 0.40 for the association between full vaccination and 28-day mortality. No significant differences were seen in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) or length of hospital stay among survivors, nor in the occurrence of bacteremia, use of vasopressors, number of vasopressor-free days, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), number of CKRT-free days, and the number of ventilator-free and ICU-free days.
“Our choice to take time since vaccination into consideration was based on several previous studies indicating that protection against infection from vaccination (specifically with mRNA vaccines, such as BNT162b2, which was administered to 76.9% of patients in the full vaccination group) may decrease over time,” the researchers write.
Oxygenation was higher in the full vaccination group than in the control group on the third day after intubation. Previous studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that oxygenation on the third day after intubation may be more strongly associated with mortality than oxygenation on the day of intubation, the researchers note. Bacteremia was higher among the control patients and could have affected mortality, although the difference between vaccinated patients and control patients was not significant, the researchers add.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including small sample size, which prevented direct comparisons of the effectiveness of different numbers of vaccine doses or vaccine types, the researchers note. Other limitations include selection bias and residual confounding variables, they say.
The results demonstrate an association between full vaccination and lower mortality and suggest that vaccination may benefit patients with COVID-19–related ARDS, beyond the need for mechanical ventilation alone, they say. “These results expand our understanding of the outcomes of patients with breakthrough infections,” they conclude.
The study was supported by a grant to corresponding author Ilias I. Siempos, MD, from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
For many, long COVID’s impacts go on and on, major study says
in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.
Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly.
This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.
“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Ruling out coincidence
This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said.
Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms.
Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher.
Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.
Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
Vaccination validated
On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living.
The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
‘More long COVID than ever before’
“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.”
Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.
Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
Support the whole person
The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”
Still, Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones.
“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner.
She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”
Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example.
“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing.
In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.
“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
Limitations of the study
Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted.
Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted.
Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”
“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”
“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.
Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly.
This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.
“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Ruling out coincidence
This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said.
Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms.
Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher.
Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.
Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
Vaccination validated
On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living.
The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
‘More long COVID than ever before’
“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.”
Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.
Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
Support the whole person
The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”
Still, Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones.
“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner.
She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”
Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example.
“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing.
In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.
“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
Limitations of the study
Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted.
Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted.
Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”
“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”
“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.
Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly.
This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.
“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Ruling out coincidence
This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said.
Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms.
Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher.
Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.
Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
Vaccination validated
On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living.
The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
‘More long COVID than ever before’
“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.”
Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.
Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
Support the whole person
The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”
Still, Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones.
“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner.
She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”
Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example.
“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing.
In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.
“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
Limitations of the study
Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted.
Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted.
Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”
“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”
“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
FDA: Newborns protected by whooping cough vaccine
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.
The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.
“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”
Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.
The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.
Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.
The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.
“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”
Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.
The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.
Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.
The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.
“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”
Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.
The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.
Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HPV infection in pregnancy higher among women living with HIV
Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.
“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.
“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”
Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
A study of studies
Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.
They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).
Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:
- The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
- Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
- Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
- HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
- One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.
Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV
“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.
“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.
“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”
Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.
“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.
“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
HPV vaccination recommended
The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”
The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.
“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.
“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.
Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.
“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.
“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”
Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
A study of studies
Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.
They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).
Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:
- The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
- Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
- Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
- HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
- One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.
Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV
“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.
“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.
“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”
Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.
“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.
“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
HPV vaccination recommended
The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”
The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.
“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.
“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.
Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.
“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.
“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”
Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
A study of studies
Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.
They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).
Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:
- The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
- Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
- Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
- HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
- One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.
Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV
“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.
“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.
“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”
Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.
“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.
“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
HPV vaccination recommended
The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”
The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.
“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.
“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.
Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME.
Is another COVID-19 booster really needed?
Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)
In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.
Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.
We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.
The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.
The conclusion? This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.
Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)
In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.
Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.
We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.
The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.
The conclusion? This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.
Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many countries around the globe are starting to roll out another booster of the COVID-19 vaccine but, with public interest waning and a sense of normalcy firmly installed in our minds, this may prove an ill-fated effort, unless authorities can provide a coherent answer to the question “Is another jab really needed?” (The short answer is a firm “yes,” of course.)
In what we could call the “chronic” phase of the pandemic, most countries have now settled for a certain number of daily cases and a (relatively low) number of complications and deaths. It’s the vaccines that have afforded us this peace of mind, lest we forget. But they are different to other vaccines that we are more familiar with, such as the MMR that we get as kids and then forget about for the rest of our lives. As good as the different COVID-19 vaccines are, they never came with the promise of generating lifelong antibodies. We knew early on that the immunity they provide slowly wanes with time. That doesn’t mean that those who have their vaccination records up to date (which included a booster probably earlier in 2022) are suddenly exposed. Data suggest that although people several months past their last booster would now be more prone to getting reinfected, the protection against severe disease still hangs around 85%. In other words, their chances of ending up in the hospital are low.
Why worry, then, about further boosting the immune system? The same studies show that an additional jab would increase this percentage up to 99%. Is this roughly 10% improvement really worth another worldwide vaccination campaign? Well, this is a numbers game, after all. The current form of the virus is extremely infectious, and the Northern Hemisphere is heading toward the cold months of the year, which we have seen in past years increases COVID-19 contagions, as you would expect from any airborne virus. Thus, it’s easy to expect a new peak in the number of cases, especially considering that we are not going to apply any of the usual restrictions to prevent this. In these conditions, extending the safety net to a further 10% of the population would substantially reduce the total number of victims. It seems like a good investment of resources.
We can be more surgical about it and direct this new vaccination campaign to the population most likely to end up in the hospital. People with concomitant pathologies are at the top of the list, but it’s also an age issue. On the basis of different studies of the most common ages of admission, the cutoff point for the booster varies from country to country, with the lowest being 50 and in other cases hovering around 65 years of age. Given the safety of these vaccines, if we can afford it, the wider we cast the net, the better, but at least we should make every effort to fully vaccinate the higher age brackets.
The final question is which vaccine to give. There are confounding studies about the importance of switching to Omicron-specific jabs, which are finally available. Although this seems like a good idea, since Omicron infections elicit a more effective range of antibodies and new variants seem to better escape our defenses, recent studies suggest that there actually may not be so much difference with the old formula.
The conclusion? This regimen of yearly boosters for some may be the scenario for the upcoming years, similar to what we already do for the flu, so we should get used to it.
Dr. Macip is associate professor, department of molecular and cellular biology, University of Leicester (England). He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.