User login
‘A few mutations away’: The threat of a vaccine-proof variant
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.
“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27.
A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.
“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.
“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”
“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”
He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”
“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.
Dr. Nelson said.
If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
Technology to the rescue?
The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.
“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.
“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
Nothing appears certain
When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.
“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”
Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.
Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
Mutations not the only concern
Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.
Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.
“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”
“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
Protected, for now
Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.
On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.
“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27.
A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.
“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.
“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”
“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”
He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”
“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.
Dr. Nelson said.
If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
Technology to the rescue?
The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.
“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.
“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
Nothing appears certain
When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.
“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”
Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.
Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
Mutations not the only concern
Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.
Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.
“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”
“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
Protected, for now
Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.
On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.
“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27.
A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.
“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.
“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”
“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”
He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”
“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.
Dr. Nelson said.
If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
Technology to the rescue?
The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.
“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.
“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
Nothing appears certain
When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.
“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”
Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.
Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
Mutations not the only concern
Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.
Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.
“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”
“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
Protected, for now
Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.
On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I Never Wanted To Be a Hero
I have been in the business of medicine for more than 15 years and I will never forget the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.
As a hospitalist, I admitted patients infected with COVID-19, followed them on the floor, and, since I had some experience working in an intensive care unit (ICU), was assigned to cover a “COVID ICU.” This wing of the hospital used to be a fancy orthopedic floor that our institution was lucky enough to have. So began the most life-changing experience in my career as a physician.
In this role, we witness death more than any of us would care to discuss. It comes with the territory, and we never expected this to change once COVID hit. However, so many patients succumbed to this disease, especially during the first surge, which made it difficult to handle emotionally. Patients that fell ill initially stayed isolated at home, optimistic they would turn the corner only to enter the hospital a week later after their conditioned worsened. After requiring a couple of liters of supplemental oxygen in the emergency room, they eventually ended up on a high flow nasal cannula in just a matter of hours.
Patients slowly got sicker and felt more helpless as the days passed, leading us to prescribe drugs that eventually proved to have no benefit. We checked countless inflammatory markers, most of which we were not even sure what to do with. Many times, we hosted a family meeting via FaceTime, holding a patient’s hand in one hand and an iPad in the other to discuss goals of care. Too often, a dark cloud hung over these discussions, a realization that there was not much else we could do.
I have always felt that helping someone have a decent and peaceful death is important, especially when the prognosis is grim, and that patient is suffering. But the sheer number of times this happened during the initial surge of the pandemic was difficult to handle. It felt like I had more of those discussions in 3 months than I did during my entire career as a hospitalist.
We helped plenty of people get better, with some heading home in a week. They thanked us, painted rocks and the sidewalks in front of the hospital displaying messages of gratitude, and sent lunches. Others, though, left the hospital 2 months later with a tube in their stomach so they could receive some form of nutrition and another in their neck to help them breathe.
These struggles were by no means special to me; other hospitalists around the world faced similar situations at one point or another during the pandemic. Working overtime, coming home late, exhausted, undressing in the garage, trying to be there for my 3 kids who were full of energy after a whole day of Zoom and doing the usual kid stuff. My house used to have strict rules about screen time. No more.
The summer months provided a bit of a COVID break, with only 1 or 2 infected patients entering my care. We went to outdoor restaurants and tried to get our lives back to “normal.” As the weather turned cold, however, things went south again. This time no more hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight malaria but also treat other autoimmune diseases, as it was proven eventually over many studies that it is not helpful and was potentially harmful. We instead shifted our focus to remdesivir—an antiviral drug that displayed some benefits—tocilizumab, and dexamethasone, anti-inflammatory drugs with the latter providing some positive outcomes on mortality.
Patient survival rates improved slightly, likely due to a combination of factors. We were more experienced at fighting the disease, which led to things in the hospital not being as chaotic and more time available to spend with the patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests were more readily available, and the population getting hit by the disease changed slightly with fewer elderly people from nursing homes falling ill because of social distancing, other safety measures, or having already fought the disease. Our attention turned instead to more young people that had returned to work and their social lives.
The arrival of the vaccines brought considerable relief. I remember a few decades ago debating and sometimes fighting with friends and family over who was better: Iron Man or Spider-Man. Now I found myself having the same conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
Summer 2021 holds significantly more promise. Most of the adult population is getting vaccinated, and I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of this nightmare. In June, our office received word that we could remove our masks if we were fully vaccinated. It felt weird, but represented another sign that things are improving. I took my kids to the mall and removed my mask. It felt odd considering how that little blue thing became part of me during the pandemic. It also felt strange to not prescribe a single dose of remdesivir for an entire month.
It feels good—and normal—to care for the patients that we neglected for a year. It has been a needed boost to see patients return to their health care providers for their colonoscopy screenings, mammograms, and managing chronic problems like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or receiving chemotherapy.
I learned plenty from this pandemic and hope I am not alone. I learned to be humble. We started with a drug that was harmful, moved on to a drug that is probably neutral and eventually were able to come up with a drug that seems to decrease mortality at least in some COVID patients. I learned it is fine to try new therapies based on the best data in the hope they result in positive clinical outcomes. However, it is critical that we all keep an eye on the rapidly evolving literature and adjust our behavior accordingly.
I also learned, or relearned, that if people are desperate enough, they will drink bleach to see if it works. Others are convinced that the purpose of vaccination is to inject a microchip allowing ourselves to be tracked by some higher power. I learned that we must take the first step to prepare for the next pandemic by having a decent reserve of PPE.
It is clear synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology is here to stay, and I believe it has a huge potential to change many areas of medicine. mRNA vaccines proved to be much faster to develop and probably much easier to change as the pathogen, in this case coronavirus, changes.
The technology could be used against a variety of infectious diseases to make vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or hepatitis. It can also be very useful for faster vaccine development needed in future possible pandemics such as influenza, Ebola, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. It may also be used for cancer treatment.
As John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, the medical director for the Center of RNA Therapeutics Program at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, said, “Most vaccines today are still viral vaccines – they are inactivated virus, so it’s potentially infectious and you have to have virus on hand. With mRNA, you’re just writing code which is going to tell the cell to make a viral protein – one part of a viral protein to stimulate an immune response. And, here’s the wonderful thing, you don’t even need the virus in hand, just its DNA code.”1
Corresponding author: Dragos Vesbianu, MD, Attending Hospitalist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington St, Newton, MA 02462; dragosv@yahoo.com.
Financial dislosures: None.
1. Houston Methodist. Messenger RNA – the Therapy of the Future. Newswise. November 16, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/messenger-rna-the-therapy-of-the-future/
I have been in the business of medicine for more than 15 years and I will never forget the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.
As a hospitalist, I admitted patients infected with COVID-19, followed them on the floor, and, since I had some experience working in an intensive care unit (ICU), was assigned to cover a “COVID ICU.” This wing of the hospital used to be a fancy orthopedic floor that our institution was lucky enough to have. So began the most life-changing experience in my career as a physician.
In this role, we witness death more than any of us would care to discuss. It comes with the territory, and we never expected this to change once COVID hit. However, so many patients succumbed to this disease, especially during the first surge, which made it difficult to handle emotionally. Patients that fell ill initially stayed isolated at home, optimistic they would turn the corner only to enter the hospital a week later after their conditioned worsened. After requiring a couple of liters of supplemental oxygen in the emergency room, they eventually ended up on a high flow nasal cannula in just a matter of hours.
Patients slowly got sicker and felt more helpless as the days passed, leading us to prescribe drugs that eventually proved to have no benefit. We checked countless inflammatory markers, most of which we were not even sure what to do with. Many times, we hosted a family meeting via FaceTime, holding a patient’s hand in one hand and an iPad in the other to discuss goals of care. Too often, a dark cloud hung over these discussions, a realization that there was not much else we could do.
I have always felt that helping someone have a decent and peaceful death is important, especially when the prognosis is grim, and that patient is suffering. But the sheer number of times this happened during the initial surge of the pandemic was difficult to handle. It felt like I had more of those discussions in 3 months than I did during my entire career as a hospitalist.
We helped plenty of people get better, with some heading home in a week. They thanked us, painted rocks and the sidewalks in front of the hospital displaying messages of gratitude, and sent lunches. Others, though, left the hospital 2 months later with a tube in their stomach so they could receive some form of nutrition and another in their neck to help them breathe.
These struggles were by no means special to me; other hospitalists around the world faced similar situations at one point or another during the pandemic. Working overtime, coming home late, exhausted, undressing in the garage, trying to be there for my 3 kids who were full of energy after a whole day of Zoom and doing the usual kid stuff. My house used to have strict rules about screen time. No more.
The summer months provided a bit of a COVID break, with only 1 or 2 infected patients entering my care. We went to outdoor restaurants and tried to get our lives back to “normal.” As the weather turned cold, however, things went south again. This time no more hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight malaria but also treat other autoimmune diseases, as it was proven eventually over many studies that it is not helpful and was potentially harmful. We instead shifted our focus to remdesivir—an antiviral drug that displayed some benefits—tocilizumab, and dexamethasone, anti-inflammatory drugs with the latter providing some positive outcomes on mortality.
Patient survival rates improved slightly, likely due to a combination of factors. We were more experienced at fighting the disease, which led to things in the hospital not being as chaotic and more time available to spend with the patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests were more readily available, and the population getting hit by the disease changed slightly with fewer elderly people from nursing homes falling ill because of social distancing, other safety measures, or having already fought the disease. Our attention turned instead to more young people that had returned to work and their social lives.
The arrival of the vaccines brought considerable relief. I remember a few decades ago debating and sometimes fighting with friends and family over who was better: Iron Man or Spider-Man. Now I found myself having the same conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
Summer 2021 holds significantly more promise. Most of the adult population is getting vaccinated, and I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of this nightmare. In June, our office received word that we could remove our masks if we were fully vaccinated. It felt weird, but represented another sign that things are improving. I took my kids to the mall and removed my mask. It felt odd considering how that little blue thing became part of me during the pandemic. It also felt strange to not prescribe a single dose of remdesivir for an entire month.
It feels good—and normal—to care for the patients that we neglected for a year. It has been a needed boost to see patients return to their health care providers for their colonoscopy screenings, mammograms, and managing chronic problems like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or receiving chemotherapy.
I learned plenty from this pandemic and hope I am not alone. I learned to be humble. We started with a drug that was harmful, moved on to a drug that is probably neutral and eventually were able to come up with a drug that seems to decrease mortality at least in some COVID patients. I learned it is fine to try new therapies based on the best data in the hope they result in positive clinical outcomes. However, it is critical that we all keep an eye on the rapidly evolving literature and adjust our behavior accordingly.
I also learned, or relearned, that if people are desperate enough, they will drink bleach to see if it works. Others are convinced that the purpose of vaccination is to inject a microchip allowing ourselves to be tracked by some higher power. I learned that we must take the first step to prepare for the next pandemic by having a decent reserve of PPE.
It is clear synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology is here to stay, and I believe it has a huge potential to change many areas of medicine. mRNA vaccines proved to be much faster to develop and probably much easier to change as the pathogen, in this case coronavirus, changes.
The technology could be used against a variety of infectious diseases to make vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or hepatitis. It can also be very useful for faster vaccine development needed in future possible pandemics such as influenza, Ebola, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. It may also be used for cancer treatment.
As John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, the medical director for the Center of RNA Therapeutics Program at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, said, “Most vaccines today are still viral vaccines – they are inactivated virus, so it’s potentially infectious and you have to have virus on hand. With mRNA, you’re just writing code which is going to tell the cell to make a viral protein – one part of a viral protein to stimulate an immune response. And, here’s the wonderful thing, you don’t even need the virus in hand, just its DNA code.”1
Corresponding author: Dragos Vesbianu, MD, Attending Hospitalist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington St, Newton, MA 02462; dragosv@yahoo.com.
Financial dislosures: None.
I have been in the business of medicine for more than 15 years and I will never forget the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.
As a hospitalist, I admitted patients infected with COVID-19, followed them on the floor, and, since I had some experience working in an intensive care unit (ICU), was assigned to cover a “COVID ICU.” This wing of the hospital used to be a fancy orthopedic floor that our institution was lucky enough to have. So began the most life-changing experience in my career as a physician.
In this role, we witness death more than any of us would care to discuss. It comes with the territory, and we never expected this to change once COVID hit. However, so many patients succumbed to this disease, especially during the first surge, which made it difficult to handle emotionally. Patients that fell ill initially stayed isolated at home, optimistic they would turn the corner only to enter the hospital a week later after their conditioned worsened. After requiring a couple of liters of supplemental oxygen in the emergency room, they eventually ended up on a high flow nasal cannula in just a matter of hours.
Patients slowly got sicker and felt more helpless as the days passed, leading us to prescribe drugs that eventually proved to have no benefit. We checked countless inflammatory markers, most of which we were not even sure what to do with. Many times, we hosted a family meeting via FaceTime, holding a patient’s hand in one hand and an iPad in the other to discuss goals of care. Too often, a dark cloud hung over these discussions, a realization that there was not much else we could do.
I have always felt that helping someone have a decent and peaceful death is important, especially when the prognosis is grim, and that patient is suffering. But the sheer number of times this happened during the initial surge of the pandemic was difficult to handle. It felt like I had more of those discussions in 3 months than I did during my entire career as a hospitalist.
We helped plenty of people get better, with some heading home in a week. They thanked us, painted rocks and the sidewalks in front of the hospital displaying messages of gratitude, and sent lunches. Others, though, left the hospital 2 months later with a tube in their stomach so they could receive some form of nutrition and another in their neck to help them breathe.
These struggles were by no means special to me; other hospitalists around the world faced similar situations at one point or another during the pandemic. Working overtime, coming home late, exhausted, undressing in the garage, trying to be there for my 3 kids who were full of energy after a whole day of Zoom and doing the usual kid stuff. My house used to have strict rules about screen time. No more.
The summer months provided a bit of a COVID break, with only 1 or 2 infected patients entering my care. We went to outdoor restaurants and tried to get our lives back to “normal.” As the weather turned cold, however, things went south again. This time no more hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight malaria but also treat other autoimmune diseases, as it was proven eventually over many studies that it is not helpful and was potentially harmful. We instead shifted our focus to remdesivir—an antiviral drug that displayed some benefits—tocilizumab, and dexamethasone, anti-inflammatory drugs with the latter providing some positive outcomes on mortality.
Patient survival rates improved slightly, likely due to a combination of factors. We were more experienced at fighting the disease, which led to things in the hospital not being as chaotic and more time available to spend with the patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests were more readily available, and the population getting hit by the disease changed slightly with fewer elderly people from nursing homes falling ill because of social distancing, other safety measures, or having already fought the disease. Our attention turned instead to more young people that had returned to work and their social lives.
The arrival of the vaccines brought considerable relief. I remember a few decades ago debating and sometimes fighting with friends and family over who was better: Iron Man or Spider-Man. Now I found myself having the same conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
Summer 2021 holds significantly more promise. Most of the adult population is getting vaccinated, and I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of this nightmare. In June, our office received word that we could remove our masks if we were fully vaccinated. It felt weird, but represented another sign that things are improving. I took my kids to the mall and removed my mask. It felt odd considering how that little blue thing became part of me during the pandemic. It also felt strange to not prescribe a single dose of remdesivir for an entire month.
It feels good—and normal—to care for the patients that we neglected for a year. It has been a needed boost to see patients return to their health care providers for their colonoscopy screenings, mammograms, and managing chronic problems like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or receiving chemotherapy.
I learned plenty from this pandemic and hope I am not alone. I learned to be humble. We started with a drug that was harmful, moved on to a drug that is probably neutral and eventually were able to come up with a drug that seems to decrease mortality at least in some COVID patients. I learned it is fine to try new therapies based on the best data in the hope they result in positive clinical outcomes. However, it is critical that we all keep an eye on the rapidly evolving literature and adjust our behavior accordingly.
I also learned, or relearned, that if people are desperate enough, they will drink bleach to see if it works. Others are convinced that the purpose of vaccination is to inject a microchip allowing ourselves to be tracked by some higher power. I learned that we must take the first step to prepare for the next pandemic by having a decent reserve of PPE.
It is clear synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology is here to stay, and I believe it has a huge potential to change many areas of medicine. mRNA vaccines proved to be much faster to develop and probably much easier to change as the pathogen, in this case coronavirus, changes.
The technology could be used against a variety of infectious diseases to make vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or hepatitis. It can also be very useful for faster vaccine development needed in future possible pandemics such as influenza, Ebola, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. It may also be used for cancer treatment.
As John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, the medical director for the Center of RNA Therapeutics Program at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, said, “Most vaccines today are still viral vaccines – they are inactivated virus, so it’s potentially infectious and you have to have virus on hand. With mRNA, you’re just writing code which is going to tell the cell to make a viral protein – one part of a viral protein to stimulate an immune response. And, here’s the wonderful thing, you don’t even need the virus in hand, just its DNA code.”1
Corresponding author: Dragos Vesbianu, MD, Attending Hospitalist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington St, Newton, MA 02462; dragosv@yahoo.com.
Financial dislosures: None.
1. Houston Methodist. Messenger RNA – the Therapy of the Future. Newswise. November 16, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/messenger-rna-the-therapy-of-the-future/
1. Houston Methodist. Messenger RNA – the Therapy of the Future. Newswise. November 16, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/messenger-rna-the-therapy-of-the-future/
COVID-19 vaccination does not increase risk of flare in patients with lupus
COVID-19 vaccinations appear to be well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and come with a low risk of flare, according to the results of a global, web-based survey.
“Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with SLE,” wrote lead author Renaud Felten, MD, of Strasbourg (France) University Hospital. Their results were published as a comment in Lancet Rheumatology.
To assess vaccine tolerability among lupus patients, the cross-sectional Tolerance and Consequences of Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Lupus Patients (VACOLUP) study analyzed a 43-question survey of 696 participants with a self-reported, medically confirmed diagnosis of SLE from 30 countries between March 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The cohort was 96% women, and their median age was 42 (interquartile range, 34-51). Nearly 36% of respondents were from Italy, 27% were from Chile, 13% were from France, and just under 9% were Americans. All participants received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and 49% received a second dose. The most common vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (57%), Sinovac (22%), AstraZeneca (10%), and Moderna (8%).
Only 21 participants (3%) reported a medically confirmed SLE flare after a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-29) post COVID vaccination, with most experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms (90%) and fatigue (86%). Of the 21 cases, 15 reported a subsequent change in SLE treatment and 4 were admitted to the hospital. A previous flare that occurred within a year before vaccination was associated with an increased risk of flare post vaccination (relative risk, 5.52; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-14.03; P < .0001).
Side effects – including swelling, soreness, fever, chills, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and headache – were reported in 45% of participants (n = 316) after their first dose and in 53% of the 343 participants who received a second dose. There was no notable difference in the likelihood of side effects across gender and age or in patients who received mRNA vaccines, compared with vaccines with other modes of action. Patients who reported side effects after the first dose were more likely to also report them after the second, compared with those who reported none (109 [81%] of 135 vs. 72 [35%] of 205; RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.82; P < .0001).
In the majority of cases (2,232 of 2,683), the side effects were of minor or moderate intensity and did not affect the participants’ ability to perform daily tasks. The study found no significant association between side effects and a SLE flare and SLE medications or previous SLE disease manifestations.
When asked to comment on the study, Amit Saxena, MD, of the Lupus Center at New York University Langone Health, said: “What we are seeing is pretty mild to moderate in terms of follow-up side effects or lupus-related activity. Several studies have shown this amongst our autoimmune rheumatology cohort, as well as what I’ve seen clinically in my own patients. More than anything else, numbers are the most important, and this is a large study.”
He acknowledged the benefits of going directly to patients to gauge their responses and reactions, giving them the opportunity to share concerns that physicians may not think about.
“As rheumatologists, we tend to focus on certain things that might not necessarily be what the patients themselves focus on,” he said. “I think the fact that this questionnaire dealt with a lot of what people complain about – fatigue, sore arm, things that we know are part of getting the vaccine – they aren’t necessarily things we capture with tools that screen for lupus flares, for example.”
More than anything, Dr. Saxena commended the study’s timeliness. “Patients are constantly asking us about the vaccine, and there’s so much misinformation,” he said. “People say, ‘Because I have lupus, I was told not to get vaccinated.’ I don’t know where they get that information from; we are telling everyone to get it, especially our lupus patients.”
The authors recognized their study’s main limitation as the self-reported and subjective nature of the survey, which they attempted to mitigate by asking for medically confirmed flares only. They noted, however, that the short median time between vaccination and flare onset could be caused by patients confusing expected side effects for something more serious, meaning the 3% figure “could be an overestimation of the actual flare rate.”
“Vaccination is recommended for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases according to the American College of Rheumatology,” they added, “irrespective of disease activity and severity.”
Several authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consultancy fees and grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Janssen, all unrelated to the study.
COVID-19 vaccinations appear to be well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and come with a low risk of flare, according to the results of a global, web-based survey.
“Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with SLE,” wrote lead author Renaud Felten, MD, of Strasbourg (France) University Hospital. Their results were published as a comment in Lancet Rheumatology.
To assess vaccine tolerability among lupus patients, the cross-sectional Tolerance and Consequences of Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Lupus Patients (VACOLUP) study analyzed a 43-question survey of 696 participants with a self-reported, medically confirmed diagnosis of SLE from 30 countries between March 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The cohort was 96% women, and their median age was 42 (interquartile range, 34-51). Nearly 36% of respondents were from Italy, 27% were from Chile, 13% were from France, and just under 9% were Americans. All participants received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and 49% received a second dose. The most common vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (57%), Sinovac (22%), AstraZeneca (10%), and Moderna (8%).
Only 21 participants (3%) reported a medically confirmed SLE flare after a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-29) post COVID vaccination, with most experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms (90%) and fatigue (86%). Of the 21 cases, 15 reported a subsequent change in SLE treatment and 4 were admitted to the hospital. A previous flare that occurred within a year before vaccination was associated with an increased risk of flare post vaccination (relative risk, 5.52; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-14.03; P < .0001).
Side effects – including swelling, soreness, fever, chills, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and headache – were reported in 45% of participants (n = 316) after their first dose and in 53% of the 343 participants who received a second dose. There was no notable difference in the likelihood of side effects across gender and age or in patients who received mRNA vaccines, compared with vaccines with other modes of action. Patients who reported side effects after the first dose were more likely to also report them after the second, compared with those who reported none (109 [81%] of 135 vs. 72 [35%] of 205; RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.82; P < .0001).
In the majority of cases (2,232 of 2,683), the side effects were of minor or moderate intensity and did not affect the participants’ ability to perform daily tasks. The study found no significant association between side effects and a SLE flare and SLE medications or previous SLE disease manifestations.
When asked to comment on the study, Amit Saxena, MD, of the Lupus Center at New York University Langone Health, said: “What we are seeing is pretty mild to moderate in terms of follow-up side effects or lupus-related activity. Several studies have shown this amongst our autoimmune rheumatology cohort, as well as what I’ve seen clinically in my own patients. More than anything else, numbers are the most important, and this is a large study.”
He acknowledged the benefits of going directly to patients to gauge their responses and reactions, giving them the opportunity to share concerns that physicians may not think about.
“As rheumatologists, we tend to focus on certain things that might not necessarily be what the patients themselves focus on,” he said. “I think the fact that this questionnaire dealt with a lot of what people complain about – fatigue, sore arm, things that we know are part of getting the vaccine – they aren’t necessarily things we capture with tools that screen for lupus flares, for example.”
More than anything, Dr. Saxena commended the study’s timeliness. “Patients are constantly asking us about the vaccine, and there’s so much misinformation,” he said. “People say, ‘Because I have lupus, I was told not to get vaccinated.’ I don’t know where they get that information from; we are telling everyone to get it, especially our lupus patients.”
The authors recognized their study’s main limitation as the self-reported and subjective nature of the survey, which they attempted to mitigate by asking for medically confirmed flares only. They noted, however, that the short median time between vaccination and flare onset could be caused by patients confusing expected side effects for something more serious, meaning the 3% figure “could be an overestimation of the actual flare rate.”
“Vaccination is recommended for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases according to the American College of Rheumatology,” they added, “irrespective of disease activity and severity.”
Several authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consultancy fees and grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Janssen, all unrelated to the study.
COVID-19 vaccinations appear to be well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and come with a low risk of flare, according to the results of a global, web-based survey.
“Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with SLE,” wrote lead author Renaud Felten, MD, of Strasbourg (France) University Hospital. Their results were published as a comment in Lancet Rheumatology.
To assess vaccine tolerability among lupus patients, the cross-sectional Tolerance and Consequences of Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Lupus Patients (VACOLUP) study analyzed a 43-question survey of 696 participants with a self-reported, medically confirmed diagnosis of SLE from 30 countries between March 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The cohort was 96% women, and their median age was 42 (interquartile range, 34-51). Nearly 36% of respondents were from Italy, 27% were from Chile, 13% were from France, and just under 9% were Americans. All participants received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and 49% received a second dose. The most common vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (57%), Sinovac (22%), AstraZeneca (10%), and Moderna (8%).
Only 21 participants (3%) reported a medically confirmed SLE flare after a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-29) post COVID vaccination, with most experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms (90%) and fatigue (86%). Of the 21 cases, 15 reported a subsequent change in SLE treatment and 4 were admitted to the hospital. A previous flare that occurred within a year before vaccination was associated with an increased risk of flare post vaccination (relative risk, 5.52; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-14.03; P < .0001).
Side effects – including swelling, soreness, fever, chills, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and headache – were reported in 45% of participants (n = 316) after their first dose and in 53% of the 343 participants who received a second dose. There was no notable difference in the likelihood of side effects across gender and age or in patients who received mRNA vaccines, compared with vaccines with other modes of action. Patients who reported side effects after the first dose were more likely to also report them after the second, compared with those who reported none (109 [81%] of 135 vs. 72 [35%] of 205; RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.82; P < .0001).
In the majority of cases (2,232 of 2,683), the side effects were of minor or moderate intensity and did not affect the participants’ ability to perform daily tasks. The study found no significant association between side effects and a SLE flare and SLE medications or previous SLE disease manifestations.
When asked to comment on the study, Amit Saxena, MD, of the Lupus Center at New York University Langone Health, said: “What we are seeing is pretty mild to moderate in terms of follow-up side effects or lupus-related activity. Several studies have shown this amongst our autoimmune rheumatology cohort, as well as what I’ve seen clinically in my own patients. More than anything else, numbers are the most important, and this is a large study.”
He acknowledged the benefits of going directly to patients to gauge their responses and reactions, giving them the opportunity to share concerns that physicians may not think about.
“As rheumatologists, we tend to focus on certain things that might not necessarily be what the patients themselves focus on,” he said. “I think the fact that this questionnaire dealt with a lot of what people complain about – fatigue, sore arm, things that we know are part of getting the vaccine – they aren’t necessarily things we capture with tools that screen for lupus flares, for example.”
More than anything, Dr. Saxena commended the study’s timeliness. “Patients are constantly asking us about the vaccine, and there’s so much misinformation,” he said. “People say, ‘Because I have lupus, I was told not to get vaccinated.’ I don’t know where they get that information from; we are telling everyone to get it, especially our lupus patients.”
The authors recognized their study’s main limitation as the self-reported and subjective nature of the survey, which they attempted to mitigate by asking for medically confirmed flares only. They noted, however, that the short median time between vaccination and flare onset could be caused by patients confusing expected side effects for something more serious, meaning the 3% figure “could be an overestimation of the actual flare rate.”
“Vaccination is recommended for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases according to the American College of Rheumatology,” they added, “irrespective of disease activity and severity.”
Several authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consultancy fees and grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Janssen, all unrelated to the study.
FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY
No link between childhood vaccinations and allergies or asthma
A meta-analysis by Australian researchers found no link between childhood vaccinations and an increase in allergies and asthma. In fact, children who received the BCG vaccine actually had a lesser incidence of eczema than other children, but there was no difference shown in any of the allergies or asthma.
The researchers, in a report published in the journal Allergy, write, “We found no evidence that childhood vaccination with commonly administered vaccines was associated with increased risk of later allergic disease.”
“Allergies have increased worldwide in the last 50 years, and in developed countries, earlier,” said study author Caroline J. Lodge, PhD, principal research fellow at the University of Melbourne, in an interview. “In developing countries, it is still a crisis.” No one knows why, she said. That was the reason for the recent study.
Allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (hay fever) and food allergies have a serious influence on quality of life, and the incidence is growing. According to the Global Asthma Network, there are 334 million people living with asthma. Between 2%-10% of adults have atopic eczema, and more than a 250,000 people have food allergies. This coincides temporally with an increase in mass vaccination of children.
Unlike the controversy surrounding vaccinations and autism, which has long been debunked as baseless, a hygiene hypothesis postulates that when children acquire immunity from many diseases, they become vulnerable to allergic reactions. Thanks to vaccinations, children in the developed world now are routinely immune to dozens of diseases.
That immunity leads to suppression of a major antibody response, increasing sensitivity to allergens and allergic disease. Suspicion of a link with childhood vaccinations has been used by opponents of vaccines in lobbying campaigns jeopardizing the sustainability of vaccine programs. In recent days, for example, the state of Tennessee has halted a program to encourage vaccination for COVID-19 as well as all other vaccinations, the result of pressure on the state by anti-vaccination lobbying.
But the Melbourne researchers reported that the meta-analysis of 42 published research studies doesn’t support the vaccine–allergy hypothesis. Using PubMed and EMBASE records between January 1946 and January 2018, researchers selected studies to be included in the analysis, looking for allergic outcomes in children given BCG or vaccines for measles or pertussis. Thirty-five publications reported cohort studies, and seven were based on randomized controlled trials.
The Australian study is not the only one showing the same lack of linkage between vaccination and allergy. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) found no association between mass vaccination and atopic disease. A 1998 Swedish study of 669 children found no differences in the incidence of allergic diseases between those who received pertussis vaccine and those who did not.
“The bottom line is that vaccines prevent infectious diseases,” said Matthew B. Laurens, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in an interview. Dr. Laurens was not part of the Australian study.
“Large-scale epidemiological studies do not support the theory that vaccines are associated with an increased risk of allergy or asthma,” he stressed. “Parents should not be deterred from vaccinating their children because of fears that this would increase risks of allergy and/or asthma.”
Dr. Lodge and Dr. Laurens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A meta-analysis by Australian researchers found no link between childhood vaccinations and an increase in allergies and asthma. In fact, children who received the BCG vaccine actually had a lesser incidence of eczema than other children, but there was no difference shown in any of the allergies or asthma.
The researchers, in a report published in the journal Allergy, write, “We found no evidence that childhood vaccination with commonly administered vaccines was associated with increased risk of later allergic disease.”
“Allergies have increased worldwide in the last 50 years, and in developed countries, earlier,” said study author Caroline J. Lodge, PhD, principal research fellow at the University of Melbourne, in an interview. “In developing countries, it is still a crisis.” No one knows why, she said. That was the reason for the recent study.
Allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (hay fever) and food allergies have a serious influence on quality of life, and the incidence is growing. According to the Global Asthma Network, there are 334 million people living with asthma. Between 2%-10% of adults have atopic eczema, and more than a 250,000 people have food allergies. This coincides temporally with an increase in mass vaccination of children.
Unlike the controversy surrounding vaccinations and autism, which has long been debunked as baseless, a hygiene hypothesis postulates that when children acquire immunity from many diseases, they become vulnerable to allergic reactions. Thanks to vaccinations, children in the developed world now are routinely immune to dozens of diseases.
That immunity leads to suppression of a major antibody response, increasing sensitivity to allergens and allergic disease. Suspicion of a link with childhood vaccinations has been used by opponents of vaccines in lobbying campaigns jeopardizing the sustainability of vaccine programs. In recent days, for example, the state of Tennessee has halted a program to encourage vaccination for COVID-19 as well as all other vaccinations, the result of pressure on the state by anti-vaccination lobbying.
But the Melbourne researchers reported that the meta-analysis of 42 published research studies doesn’t support the vaccine–allergy hypothesis. Using PubMed and EMBASE records between January 1946 and January 2018, researchers selected studies to be included in the analysis, looking for allergic outcomes in children given BCG or vaccines for measles or pertussis. Thirty-five publications reported cohort studies, and seven were based on randomized controlled trials.
The Australian study is not the only one showing the same lack of linkage between vaccination and allergy. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) found no association between mass vaccination and atopic disease. A 1998 Swedish study of 669 children found no differences in the incidence of allergic diseases between those who received pertussis vaccine and those who did not.
“The bottom line is that vaccines prevent infectious diseases,” said Matthew B. Laurens, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in an interview. Dr. Laurens was not part of the Australian study.
“Large-scale epidemiological studies do not support the theory that vaccines are associated with an increased risk of allergy or asthma,” he stressed. “Parents should not be deterred from vaccinating their children because of fears that this would increase risks of allergy and/or asthma.”
Dr. Lodge and Dr. Laurens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A meta-analysis by Australian researchers found no link between childhood vaccinations and an increase in allergies and asthma. In fact, children who received the BCG vaccine actually had a lesser incidence of eczema than other children, but there was no difference shown in any of the allergies or asthma.
The researchers, in a report published in the journal Allergy, write, “We found no evidence that childhood vaccination with commonly administered vaccines was associated with increased risk of later allergic disease.”
“Allergies have increased worldwide in the last 50 years, and in developed countries, earlier,” said study author Caroline J. Lodge, PhD, principal research fellow at the University of Melbourne, in an interview. “In developing countries, it is still a crisis.” No one knows why, she said. That was the reason for the recent study.
Allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (hay fever) and food allergies have a serious influence on quality of life, and the incidence is growing. According to the Global Asthma Network, there are 334 million people living with asthma. Between 2%-10% of adults have atopic eczema, and more than a 250,000 people have food allergies. This coincides temporally with an increase in mass vaccination of children.
Unlike the controversy surrounding vaccinations and autism, which has long been debunked as baseless, a hygiene hypothesis postulates that when children acquire immunity from many diseases, they become vulnerable to allergic reactions. Thanks to vaccinations, children in the developed world now are routinely immune to dozens of diseases.
That immunity leads to suppression of a major antibody response, increasing sensitivity to allergens and allergic disease. Suspicion of a link with childhood vaccinations has been used by opponents of vaccines in lobbying campaigns jeopardizing the sustainability of vaccine programs. In recent days, for example, the state of Tennessee has halted a program to encourage vaccination for COVID-19 as well as all other vaccinations, the result of pressure on the state by anti-vaccination lobbying.
But the Melbourne researchers reported that the meta-analysis of 42 published research studies doesn’t support the vaccine–allergy hypothesis. Using PubMed and EMBASE records between January 1946 and January 2018, researchers selected studies to be included in the analysis, looking for allergic outcomes in children given BCG or vaccines for measles or pertussis. Thirty-five publications reported cohort studies, and seven were based on randomized controlled trials.
The Australian study is not the only one showing the same lack of linkage between vaccination and allergy. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) found no association between mass vaccination and atopic disease. A 1998 Swedish study of 669 children found no differences in the incidence of allergic diseases between those who received pertussis vaccine and those who did not.
“The bottom line is that vaccines prevent infectious diseases,” said Matthew B. Laurens, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, in an interview. Dr. Laurens was not part of the Australian study.
“Large-scale epidemiological studies do not support the theory that vaccines are associated with an increased risk of allergy or asthma,” he stressed. “Parents should not be deterred from vaccinating their children because of fears that this would increase risks of allergy and/or asthma.”
Dr. Lodge and Dr. Laurens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy still weighs heavy for some rheumatic disease patients
With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.
The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.
“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.
The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.
“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness
Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.
The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.
Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection
Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.
“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.
The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.
“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.
A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.
There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
Antibody tests not recommended
In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.
“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.
Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies
In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.
Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.
“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.
A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.
“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.
Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination
In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.
Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.
In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.
With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.
The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.
“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.
The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.
“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness
Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.
The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.
Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection
Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.
“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.
The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.
“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.
A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.
There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
Antibody tests not recommended
In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.
“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.
Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies
In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.
Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.
“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.
A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.
“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.
Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination
In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.
Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.
In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.
With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.
The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.
“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.
The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.
“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness
Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.
The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.
Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection
Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.
“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.
The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.
“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.
A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.
There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
Antibody tests not recommended
In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.
“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.
Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies
In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.
Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.
“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.
A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.
“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.
Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination
In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.
Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.
In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.
FROM THE GRAPPA 2021 ANNUAL MEETING
Vaccine mandates, passports, and Kant
Houston Methodist Hospital in June 2021 enforced an April mandate that all its employees, about 26,000 of them, must be vaccinated against COVID-19. In the following weeks, many other large health care systems adopted a similar employer mandate.
Compliance with Houston Methodist’s mandate has been very high at nearly 99%. There were some deferrals, mostly because of pregnancy. There were some “medical and personal” exemptions for less than 1% of employees. The reasons for those personal exemptions have not been made public. A lawsuit by 117 employees objecting to the vaccine mandate was dismissed by a federal district judge on June 12.
Objections to the vaccine mandate have rarely involved religious-based conscientious objections, which need to be accommodated differently, legally and ethically. The objections have been disagreements on the science. As a politician said decades ago: “People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.” A medical institution is an excellent organization for determining the risks and benefits of vaccination. The judge dismissing the case was very critical of the characterizations used by the plaintiffs.
The vaccine mandate has strong ethical support from both the universalizability principle of Kant and a consequentialist analysis. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on May 28, 2021, released technical assistance that has generally been interpreted to support an employer’s right to set vaccine requirements. HIPAA does not forbid an employer from asking about vaccination, but the EEOC guidance reminds employers that if they do ask, employers have legal obligations to protect the health information and keep it separate from other personnel files.
In the past few years, many hospitals and clinics have adopted mandates for influenza vaccines. In many children’s hospitals staff have been required to have chicken pox vaccines (or, as in my case, titers showing immunity from the real thing – I’m old) since the early 2000s. Measles titers (again, mine were acquired naturally – I still remember the illness and recommend against that) and TB status are occasionally required for locum tenens positions. I keep copies of these labs alongside copies of my diplomas. To me, the COVID-19 mandate is not capricious.
Some people have pointed out that the COVID-19 vaccines are not fully Food and Drug Administration approved. They are used under an emergency use authorization. Any traction that distinction might have had ethically and scientifically in November 2020 has disappeared with the experience of 9 months and 300 million doses in the United States. Dr. Fauci on July 11, 2021, said: “These vaccines are as good as officially approved with all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed.”
On July 12, 2021, French President Macron, facing a resurgence of the pandemic because of the delta variant, announced a national vaccine mandate for all health care workers. He also announced plans to require proof of vaccination (or prior disease) in order to enter amusement parks, restaurants, and other public facilities. The ethics of his plans have been debated by ethicists and politicians for months under the rubric of a “vaccine passport.” England has required proof of vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test before entering soccer stadiums. In the United States, some localities, particularly those where the local politicians are against the vaccine, have passed laws proscribing the creation of these passport-like restrictions. Elsewhere, many businesses have already started to exclude customers who are not vaccinated. Airlines, hotels, and cruise ships are at the forefront of this. Society has started to create consequences for not getting the vaccine. President Macron indicated that the goal was now to put restrictions on the unvaccinated rather than on everyone.
Pediatricians are experts on the importance of consequences for misbehavior and refusals. It is a frequent topic of conversation with parents of toddlers and teenagers. Consequences are ethical, just, and effective ways of promoting safe and fair behavior. At this point, the public has been educated about the disease and the vaccines. In the United States, there has been ample access to the vaccine. It is time to enforce consequences.
Daily vaccination rates in the United States have slowed to 25% of the peak rates. The reasons for hesitancy have been analyzed in many publications. Further public education hasn’t been productive, so empathic listening has been urged to overcome hesitancy. (A similar program has long been advocated to deal with hesitancy for teenage HPV vaccines.) President Biden on July 6, 2021, proposed a program of going door to door to overcome resistance.
The world is in a race between vaccines and the delta variant. The Delta variant is moving the finish line, with some French epidemiologists advising President Macron that this more contagious variant may require a 90% vaccination level to achieve herd immunity. Israel has started giving a third booster shot in select situations and Pfizer is considering the idea. I agree with providing education, using empathic listening, and improving access. Those are all reasonable, even necessary, strategies. But at this point, I anchor my suggestions with the same advice pediatricians have long given to parents. Set rules and create consequences for misbehavior.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Houston Methodist Hospital in June 2021 enforced an April mandate that all its employees, about 26,000 of them, must be vaccinated against COVID-19. In the following weeks, many other large health care systems adopted a similar employer mandate.
Compliance with Houston Methodist’s mandate has been very high at nearly 99%. There were some deferrals, mostly because of pregnancy. There were some “medical and personal” exemptions for less than 1% of employees. The reasons for those personal exemptions have not been made public. A lawsuit by 117 employees objecting to the vaccine mandate was dismissed by a federal district judge on June 12.
Objections to the vaccine mandate have rarely involved religious-based conscientious objections, which need to be accommodated differently, legally and ethically. The objections have been disagreements on the science. As a politician said decades ago: “People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.” A medical institution is an excellent organization for determining the risks and benefits of vaccination. The judge dismissing the case was very critical of the characterizations used by the plaintiffs.
The vaccine mandate has strong ethical support from both the universalizability principle of Kant and a consequentialist analysis. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on May 28, 2021, released technical assistance that has generally been interpreted to support an employer’s right to set vaccine requirements. HIPAA does not forbid an employer from asking about vaccination, but the EEOC guidance reminds employers that if they do ask, employers have legal obligations to protect the health information and keep it separate from other personnel files.
In the past few years, many hospitals and clinics have adopted mandates for influenza vaccines. In many children’s hospitals staff have been required to have chicken pox vaccines (or, as in my case, titers showing immunity from the real thing – I’m old) since the early 2000s. Measles titers (again, mine were acquired naturally – I still remember the illness and recommend against that) and TB status are occasionally required for locum tenens positions. I keep copies of these labs alongside copies of my diplomas. To me, the COVID-19 mandate is not capricious.
Some people have pointed out that the COVID-19 vaccines are not fully Food and Drug Administration approved. They are used under an emergency use authorization. Any traction that distinction might have had ethically and scientifically in November 2020 has disappeared with the experience of 9 months and 300 million doses in the United States. Dr. Fauci on July 11, 2021, said: “These vaccines are as good as officially approved with all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed.”
On July 12, 2021, French President Macron, facing a resurgence of the pandemic because of the delta variant, announced a national vaccine mandate for all health care workers. He also announced plans to require proof of vaccination (or prior disease) in order to enter amusement parks, restaurants, and other public facilities. The ethics of his plans have been debated by ethicists and politicians for months under the rubric of a “vaccine passport.” England has required proof of vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test before entering soccer stadiums. In the United States, some localities, particularly those where the local politicians are against the vaccine, have passed laws proscribing the creation of these passport-like restrictions. Elsewhere, many businesses have already started to exclude customers who are not vaccinated. Airlines, hotels, and cruise ships are at the forefront of this. Society has started to create consequences for not getting the vaccine. President Macron indicated that the goal was now to put restrictions on the unvaccinated rather than on everyone.
Pediatricians are experts on the importance of consequences for misbehavior and refusals. It is a frequent topic of conversation with parents of toddlers and teenagers. Consequences are ethical, just, and effective ways of promoting safe and fair behavior. At this point, the public has been educated about the disease and the vaccines. In the United States, there has been ample access to the vaccine. It is time to enforce consequences.
Daily vaccination rates in the United States have slowed to 25% of the peak rates. The reasons for hesitancy have been analyzed in many publications. Further public education hasn’t been productive, so empathic listening has been urged to overcome hesitancy. (A similar program has long been advocated to deal with hesitancy for teenage HPV vaccines.) President Biden on July 6, 2021, proposed a program of going door to door to overcome resistance.
The world is in a race between vaccines and the delta variant. The Delta variant is moving the finish line, with some French epidemiologists advising President Macron that this more contagious variant may require a 90% vaccination level to achieve herd immunity. Israel has started giving a third booster shot in select situations and Pfizer is considering the idea. I agree with providing education, using empathic listening, and improving access. Those are all reasonable, even necessary, strategies. But at this point, I anchor my suggestions with the same advice pediatricians have long given to parents. Set rules and create consequences for misbehavior.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Houston Methodist Hospital in June 2021 enforced an April mandate that all its employees, about 26,000 of them, must be vaccinated against COVID-19. In the following weeks, many other large health care systems adopted a similar employer mandate.
Compliance with Houston Methodist’s mandate has been very high at nearly 99%. There were some deferrals, mostly because of pregnancy. There were some “medical and personal” exemptions for less than 1% of employees. The reasons for those personal exemptions have not been made public. A lawsuit by 117 employees objecting to the vaccine mandate was dismissed by a federal district judge on June 12.
Objections to the vaccine mandate have rarely involved religious-based conscientious objections, which need to be accommodated differently, legally and ethically. The objections have been disagreements on the science. As a politician said decades ago: “People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.” A medical institution is an excellent organization for determining the risks and benefits of vaccination. The judge dismissing the case was very critical of the characterizations used by the plaintiffs.
The vaccine mandate has strong ethical support from both the universalizability principle of Kant and a consequentialist analysis. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on May 28, 2021, released technical assistance that has generally been interpreted to support an employer’s right to set vaccine requirements. HIPAA does not forbid an employer from asking about vaccination, but the EEOC guidance reminds employers that if they do ask, employers have legal obligations to protect the health information and keep it separate from other personnel files.
In the past few years, many hospitals and clinics have adopted mandates for influenza vaccines. In many children’s hospitals staff have been required to have chicken pox vaccines (or, as in my case, titers showing immunity from the real thing – I’m old) since the early 2000s. Measles titers (again, mine were acquired naturally – I still remember the illness and recommend against that) and TB status are occasionally required for locum tenens positions. I keep copies of these labs alongside copies of my diplomas. To me, the COVID-19 mandate is not capricious.
Some people have pointed out that the COVID-19 vaccines are not fully Food and Drug Administration approved. They are used under an emergency use authorization. Any traction that distinction might have had ethically and scientifically in November 2020 has disappeared with the experience of 9 months and 300 million doses in the United States. Dr. Fauci on July 11, 2021, said: “These vaccines are as good as officially approved with all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed.”
On July 12, 2021, French President Macron, facing a resurgence of the pandemic because of the delta variant, announced a national vaccine mandate for all health care workers. He also announced plans to require proof of vaccination (or prior disease) in order to enter amusement parks, restaurants, and other public facilities. The ethics of his plans have been debated by ethicists and politicians for months under the rubric of a “vaccine passport.” England has required proof of vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test before entering soccer stadiums. In the United States, some localities, particularly those where the local politicians are against the vaccine, have passed laws proscribing the creation of these passport-like restrictions. Elsewhere, many businesses have already started to exclude customers who are not vaccinated. Airlines, hotels, and cruise ships are at the forefront of this. Society has started to create consequences for not getting the vaccine. President Macron indicated that the goal was now to put restrictions on the unvaccinated rather than on everyone.
Pediatricians are experts on the importance of consequences for misbehavior and refusals. It is a frequent topic of conversation with parents of toddlers and teenagers. Consequences are ethical, just, and effective ways of promoting safe and fair behavior. At this point, the public has been educated about the disease and the vaccines. In the United States, there has been ample access to the vaccine. It is time to enforce consequences.
Daily vaccination rates in the United States have slowed to 25% of the peak rates. The reasons for hesitancy have been analyzed in many publications. Further public education hasn’t been productive, so empathic listening has been urged to overcome hesitancy. (A similar program has long been advocated to deal with hesitancy for teenage HPV vaccines.) President Biden on July 6, 2021, proposed a program of going door to door to overcome resistance.
The world is in a race between vaccines and the delta variant. The Delta variant is moving the finish line, with some French epidemiologists advising President Macron that this more contagious variant may require a 90% vaccination level to achieve herd immunity. Israel has started giving a third booster shot in select situations and Pfizer is considering the idea. I agree with providing education, using empathic listening, and improving access. Those are all reasonable, even necessary, strategies. But at this point, I anchor my suggestions with the same advice pediatricians have long given to parents. Set rules and create consequences for misbehavior.
Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Patients on methotrexate show T-cell response to Pfizer vaccine
People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.
The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.
The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.
“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”
Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.
Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.
Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.
All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.
The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”
A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.
‘Some protection is better than none’
These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.
It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.
“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.
“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.
“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
Temporarily stopping methotrexate
It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.
Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.
“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”
Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.
However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.
This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.
The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.
The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.
“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”
Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.
Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.
Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.
All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.
The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”
A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.
‘Some protection is better than none’
These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.
It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.
“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.
“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.
“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
Temporarily stopping methotrexate
It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.
Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.
“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”
Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.
However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.
This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.
The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.
The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.
“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”
Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.
Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.
Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.
All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.
The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”
A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.
‘Some protection is better than none’
These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.
It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.
“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.
“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.
“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
Temporarily stopping methotrexate
It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.
Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.
“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”
Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.
However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.
This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New details of myocarditis linked to COVID vaccines
Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.
The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.
The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.
The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
U.S. military reports 23 cases
In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).
All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.
Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.
The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.
They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.
“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.
They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.
“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.
They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.
But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.
“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.
“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
Four cases at Duke
In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.
The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.
They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years.
“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
Further case reports
In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.
Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.
“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.
They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”
Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation.
In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN, presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.
Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.
And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.
“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.
They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
‘Benefits outweigh risk’
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.
The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.
On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”
They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.
But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.
“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.
But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?
“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.
In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.
“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.
The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.
The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.
The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
U.S. military reports 23 cases
In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).
All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.
Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.
The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.
They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.
“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.
They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.
“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.
They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.
But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.
“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.
“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
Four cases at Duke
In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.
The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.
They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years.
“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
Further case reports
In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.
Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.
“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.
They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”
Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation.
In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN, presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.
Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.
And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.
“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.
They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
‘Benefits outweigh risk’
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.
The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.
On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”
They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.
But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.
“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.
But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?
“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.
In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.
“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.
The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.
The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.
The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
U.S. military reports 23 cases
In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).
All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.
Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.
The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.
They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.
“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.
They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.
“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.
They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.
But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.
“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.
“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
Four cases at Duke
In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.
The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.
They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years.
“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
Further case reports
In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.
Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.
“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.
They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”
Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation.
In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN, presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.
Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.
And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.
“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.
They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
‘Benefits outweigh risk’
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.
The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.
On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”
They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.
But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.
“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.
But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?
“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.
In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.
“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Few clinical guidelines exist for treating post-COVID symptoms
As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.
Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.
Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.
which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.
While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.
It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.
One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.
It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.
The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.
Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.
Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.
which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.
While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.
It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.
One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.
It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.
The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.
Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.
Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.
which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.
While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.
It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.
One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.
It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.
The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Giving flu and COVID-19 shots at same time appears safe, effective: Study
Overall, the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax) is showing 89.8% efficacy in an ongoing, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. When the researchers gave a smaller group of 431 volunteers from the same study an influenza shot at the same time, efficacy dropped slightly to 87.5%.
“These results demonstrate the promising opportunity for concomitant vaccination, which may lead to higher vaccination rates and further protection against both viruses,” said study coauthor Raja Rajaram, MD, medical affairs lead, Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Seqirus, the company that supplied the influenza vaccines for the research.
The research was published online June 13 as a medRxiv preprint.
“With these COVID-19 vaccines, there are essentially no concurrent use studies,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment.
Traditionally, how a new vaccine might interact with existing vaccines is studied before the product is cleared for use. That was not the case, however, with the COVID-19 vaccines made available through expedited emergency use authorization.
The researchers found no major safety concerns associated with concomitant vaccination, Dr. Rajaram said. In addition to safety, the aim of the current study was to determine whether either vaccine changes the immunogenicity or effectiveness of the other.
“It’s a small study, but it’s certainly encouraging to know that there didn’t seem to be a big decrease in immunogenicity either way and the safety profile was similar. Not identical, but similar,” added Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Some adverse events were more common in the co-administration group. For example, injection-site tenderness was reported by 70%, versus 58% for those who got the COVID-19 shot alone. The same was true for pain at the injection site, 40% versus 29%; fatigue, 28% versus 19%; and muscle pain, 28% versus 21%.
Rates of unsolicited adverse events, adverse events that required medical attention, and serious adverse events were low and well balanced between groups.
Fewer antibodies important?
Although co-administering the two vaccines did not change the immune response for the influenza vaccine, the spike protein antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine was less robust.
Antibody titer levels at day 35 were 46,678 among people in the Novavax vaccine alone group, compared with 31,236 titers in the participants who received both vaccines.
“This impact did not seem to be clinically meaningful as vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved,” the researchers noted.
Gregory A. Poland, MD, an internist and part of the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agreed. “I highly doubt that is significant,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Rajaram said the antibody findings are “slightly surprising but not completely unexpected” because the same observation has been made in other combination vaccine studies. He added that the antibody levels “remain very high, although we do not yet know what antibody levels are required to achieve protection against COVID-19.”
The decrease could become more concerning if people start with fewer antibodies and they drop over time with normal waning of protection, Dr. Poland said. This group could include people over age 65 or people who are immunocompromised. More data would be needed to confirm this, he added.
A boost for booster vaccines?
The research could carry implications for future COVID-19 booster shots, Dr. Poland said.
“Overall, the study results are reassuring and of potential practical importance if we have to give booster doses. It will make it easier to give them both in one visit,” said Dr. Poland, who was not affiliated with the research.
Although Novavax could be positioning itself as a logical choice for a COVID-19 booster based on the findings, Dr. Offit believes it is more important to focus on having more COVID-19 vaccine options available.
“There may be, as we say at the track, ‘courses for horses,’ ” he said, meaning that different vaccines may be better suited for different situations.
“It’s likely we’re going to find these vaccines have different safety profiles, they may have different populations for whom they work best, and they may have differences in terms of their long-term durability,” he added. Also, some may prove more effective against certain variants of concern.
The Novavax vaccine would add a new class of COVID-19 vaccine to the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant spike protein vaccine.
“I think the more vaccines that are available here, the better,” Dr. Offit said.
Study limitations
Dr. Poland shared some caveats. The study was primarily conducted in adults aged 18-64 years, so there is less certainty on what could happen in people over 65. Furthermore, co-administration was evaluated after the first dose of the Novavax vaccine. “The reason I bring that up is most of the COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity occurs with dose two, not dose one.
“All in all, it’s an important first step – but it’s only a first step,” Dr. Poland said. “We need more data, including in elderly people who are primarily at risk for morbidity and mortality from the flu.”
He suggested expanding the research to study co-administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different formulations of influenza vaccines.
The study was supported by Novavax. Dr. Offit had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Poland serves as a consultant to all of the COVID-19 vaccine companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall, the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax) is showing 89.8% efficacy in an ongoing, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. When the researchers gave a smaller group of 431 volunteers from the same study an influenza shot at the same time, efficacy dropped slightly to 87.5%.
“These results demonstrate the promising opportunity for concomitant vaccination, which may lead to higher vaccination rates and further protection against both viruses,” said study coauthor Raja Rajaram, MD, medical affairs lead, Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Seqirus, the company that supplied the influenza vaccines for the research.
The research was published online June 13 as a medRxiv preprint.
“With these COVID-19 vaccines, there are essentially no concurrent use studies,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment.
Traditionally, how a new vaccine might interact with existing vaccines is studied before the product is cleared for use. That was not the case, however, with the COVID-19 vaccines made available through expedited emergency use authorization.
The researchers found no major safety concerns associated with concomitant vaccination, Dr. Rajaram said. In addition to safety, the aim of the current study was to determine whether either vaccine changes the immunogenicity or effectiveness of the other.
“It’s a small study, but it’s certainly encouraging to know that there didn’t seem to be a big decrease in immunogenicity either way and the safety profile was similar. Not identical, but similar,” added Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Some adverse events were more common in the co-administration group. For example, injection-site tenderness was reported by 70%, versus 58% for those who got the COVID-19 shot alone. The same was true for pain at the injection site, 40% versus 29%; fatigue, 28% versus 19%; and muscle pain, 28% versus 21%.
Rates of unsolicited adverse events, adverse events that required medical attention, and serious adverse events were low and well balanced between groups.
Fewer antibodies important?
Although co-administering the two vaccines did not change the immune response for the influenza vaccine, the spike protein antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine was less robust.
Antibody titer levels at day 35 were 46,678 among people in the Novavax vaccine alone group, compared with 31,236 titers in the participants who received both vaccines.
“This impact did not seem to be clinically meaningful as vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved,” the researchers noted.
Gregory A. Poland, MD, an internist and part of the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agreed. “I highly doubt that is significant,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Rajaram said the antibody findings are “slightly surprising but not completely unexpected” because the same observation has been made in other combination vaccine studies. He added that the antibody levels “remain very high, although we do not yet know what antibody levels are required to achieve protection against COVID-19.”
The decrease could become more concerning if people start with fewer antibodies and they drop over time with normal waning of protection, Dr. Poland said. This group could include people over age 65 or people who are immunocompromised. More data would be needed to confirm this, he added.
A boost for booster vaccines?
The research could carry implications for future COVID-19 booster shots, Dr. Poland said.
“Overall, the study results are reassuring and of potential practical importance if we have to give booster doses. It will make it easier to give them both in one visit,” said Dr. Poland, who was not affiliated with the research.
Although Novavax could be positioning itself as a logical choice for a COVID-19 booster based on the findings, Dr. Offit believes it is more important to focus on having more COVID-19 vaccine options available.
“There may be, as we say at the track, ‘courses for horses,’ ” he said, meaning that different vaccines may be better suited for different situations.
“It’s likely we’re going to find these vaccines have different safety profiles, they may have different populations for whom they work best, and they may have differences in terms of their long-term durability,” he added. Also, some may prove more effective against certain variants of concern.
The Novavax vaccine would add a new class of COVID-19 vaccine to the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant spike protein vaccine.
“I think the more vaccines that are available here, the better,” Dr. Offit said.
Study limitations
Dr. Poland shared some caveats. The study was primarily conducted in adults aged 18-64 years, so there is less certainty on what could happen in people over 65. Furthermore, co-administration was evaluated after the first dose of the Novavax vaccine. “The reason I bring that up is most of the COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity occurs with dose two, not dose one.
“All in all, it’s an important first step – but it’s only a first step,” Dr. Poland said. “We need more data, including in elderly people who are primarily at risk for morbidity and mortality from the flu.”
He suggested expanding the research to study co-administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different formulations of influenza vaccines.
The study was supported by Novavax. Dr. Offit had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Poland serves as a consultant to all of the COVID-19 vaccine companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall, the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax) is showing 89.8% efficacy in an ongoing, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. When the researchers gave a smaller group of 431 volunteers from the same study an influenza shot at the same time, efficacy dropped slightly to 87.5%.
“These results demonstrate the promising opportunity for concomitant vaccination, which may lead to higher vaccination rates and further protection against both viruses,” said study coauthor Raja Rajaram, MD, medical affairs lead, Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Seqirus, the company that supplied the influenza vaccines for the research.
The research was published online June 13 as a medRxiv preprint.
“With these COVID-19 vaccines, there are essentially no concurrent use studies,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment.
Traditionally, how a new vaccine might interact with existing vaccines is studied before the product is cleared for use. That was not the case, however, with the COVID-19 vaccines made available through expedited emergency use authorization.
The researchers found no major safety concerns associated with concomitant vaccination, Dr. Rajaram said. In addition to safety, the aim of the current study was to determine whether either vaccine changes the immunogenicity or effectiveness of the other.
“It’s a small study, but it’s certainly encouraging to know that there didn’t seem to be a big decrease in immunogenicity either way and the safety profile was similar. Not identical, but similar,” added Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Some adverse events were more common in the co-administration group. For example, injection-site tenderness was reported by 70%, versus 58% for those who got the COVID-19 shot alone. The same was true for pain at the injection site, 40% versus 29%; fatigue, 28% versus 19%; and muscle pain, 28% versus 21%.
Rates of unsolicited adverse events, adverse events that required medical attention, and serious adverse events were low and well balanced between groups.
Fewer antibodies important?
Although co-administering the two vaccines did not change the immune response for the influenza vaccine, the spike protein antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine was less robust.
Antibody titer levels at day 35 were 46,678 among people in the Novavax vaccine alone group, compared with 31,236 titers in the participants who received both vaccines.
“This impact did not seem to be clinically meaningful as vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved,” the researchers noted.
Gregory A. Poland, MD, an internist and part of the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agreed. “I highly doubt that is significant,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Rajaram said the antibody findings are “slightly surprising but not completely unexpected” because the same observation has been made in other combination vaccine studies. He added that the antibody levels “remain very high, although we do not yet know what antibody levels are required to achieve protection against COVID-19.”
The decrease could become more concerning if people start with fewer antibodies and they drop over time with normal waning of protection, Dr. Poland said. This group could include people over age 65 or people who are immunocompromised. More data would be needed to confirm this, he added.
A boost for booster vaccines?
The research could carry implications for future COVID-19 booster shots, Dr. Poland said.
“Overall, the study results are reassuring and of potential practical importance if we have to give booster doses. It will make it easier to give them both in one visit,” said Dr. Poland, who was not affiliated with the research.
Although Novavax could be positioning itself as a logical choice for a COVID-19 booster based on the findings, Dr. Offit believes it is more important to focus on having more COVID-19 vaccine options available.
“There may be, as we say at the track, ‘courses for horses,’ ” he said, meaning that different vaccines may be better suited for different situations.
“It’s likely we’re going to find these vaccines have different safety profiles, they may have different populations for whom they work best, and they may have differences in terms of their long-term durability,” he added. Also, some may prove more effective against certain variants of concern.
The Novavax vaccine would add a new class of COVID-19 vaccine to the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant spike protein vaccine.
“I think the more vaccines that are available here, the better,” Dr. Offit said.
Study limitations
Dr. Poland shared some caveats. The study was primarily conducted in adults aged 18-64 years, so there is less certainty on what could happen in people over 65. Furthermore, co-administration was evaluated after the first dose of the Novavax vaccine. “The reason I bring that up is most of the COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity occurs with dose two, not dose one.
“All in all, it’s an important first step – but it’s only a first step,” Dr. Poland said. “We need more data, including in elderly people who are primarily at risk for morbidity and mortality from the flu.”
He suggested expanding the research to study co-administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different formulations of influenza vaccines.
The study was supported by Novavax. Dr. Offit had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Poland serves as a consultant to all of the COVID-19 vaccine companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.