User login
Damian McNamara is a journalist for Medscape Medical News and MDedge. He worked full-time for MDedge as the Miami Bureau covering a dozen medical specialties during 2001-2012, then as a freelancer for Medscape and MDedge, before being hired on staff by Medscape in 2018. Now the two companies are one. He uses what he learned in school – Damian has a BS in chemistry and an MS in science, health and environmental reporting/journalism. He works out of a home office in Miami, with a 100-pound chocolate lab known to snore under his desk during work hours.
Future HIV PrEP innovations aim to address adherence, women’s health, and combination treatments
TAMPA – Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown to be effective in many clinical and real-world studies, but concerns remain, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).
Only about 20% of people who could benefit from PrEP use the preventative medication, for example. Another concern is adherence, as regular use generally drops off over time, rarely lasting more than a few months for most people.
Furthermore, most studies to date evaluated safety and effectiveness of PrEP options among men who have sex with men. Now the focus is increasing on other populations, including women at risk of HIV exposure.
Researchers working on new forms and formulations of PrEP are looking for ways to address those challenges.
said Craig W. Hendrix, MD, professor and director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
“What I hear a lot of folks say [is] there are two or three options for PrEP, so why do we need more? We need choices that fit into a broader range of lifestyles,” Dr. Hendrix said.
For example, a medically fortified douche containing PrEP might be more likely to be used by people who use a douche before or after sex on a regular basis. This is called a “behaviorally congruent” strategy, Dr. Hendrix said.
In addition to a medical douche, formulations designed to continuously deliver PrEP, such as a subdermal implant, are in the works as well.
Another option for women, the dapivirine vaginal ring, is available internationally but not in the United States. “It was withdrawn from [Food and Drug Administration] consideration by the sponsor. I think it’s a huge loss not to have that,” Dr. Hendrix said.
During development, “frequent expulsions forced reformulation to a less stiff ring,” Dr. Hendrix said. “I don’t imagine that’s terrific, but it shows how important it is to have something that fits the anatomy and the lifestyle.”
“Currently, we have in the U.S. three licensed, really terrific options for PrEP, and they’re all for men that have sex with men and transgender women,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Three current options
The three current PrEP regimens in the United States often go by their abbreviations: F/TDF, F/TAF, and CAB-IM.
- F/TDF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada, Gilead or generics)
- F/TAF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 25 mg (Descovy, Gilead)
- CAB-IM is cabotegravir (CAB) 600 mg injection (Apretude, GlaxoSmithKline)
There is an important distinction: Daily oral PrEP with F/TDF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among all people at risk through sex or injection drug use. Daily oral PrEP with F/TAF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among people at risk through sex, excluding people at risk through receptive vaginal sex, the CDC notes.
The cost-effectiveness of the injection remains a potential issue, Dr. Hendrix said. On the other hand, “cost-effectiveness goes out the window if there is no adherence.”
An active pipeline
There are 24 new PrEP products in development, as well as 24 other multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which are combination products containing PrEP and one or two other medications.
These 48 products include 28 unique antiviral and contraceptive drugs and 12 delivery methods or formulations. “Why so many?” Dr. Hendrix asked. “Many will not make it through development.”
Pills that include HIV PrEP and contraception or PrEP and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment are being evaluated, for example. “HIV risk, pregnancy risk, and other viral STIs overlap. Ideally, you can have one target for all three. That would increase efficiency of dosing and adherence,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Dual prevention pills (DPPs) hypothetically provide HIV PrEP and contraception better than either product alone, Dr. Hendrix said. Plans are to market them as family planning or women’s health products to avoid any stigma or distrust associated with HIV PrEP. An initial rollout is planned in 2024 in sub-Saharan Africa where the unmet need is highest, he added.
“Imagine how effective this could be in women in the United States,” Dr. Hendrix said. “My hope is fourth-quarter 2024” availability in the United States.
A way to prevent STIs and HIV in an all-in-one product “would be terrific,” Dr. Hendrix said.
“I think we’re going to see a lot more innovation going in that direction. The pill is close. The other things are going to be further off because the regulatory pathway is a little more complicated.”
Longer lasting protection?
All of the innovations have gone one of two directions, Dr. Hendrix said. One direction is to make PrEP even longer acting, “so that you have even less to worry [about] in terms of adherence.”
Going forward, “most of the focus has all been on continuously acting or long-active PrEP. It’s getting longer and longer: We’ve got 2 months, and they’re looking at a 6-month subcutaneous injection,” Dr. Hendrix said. The investigational agent lenacapavir is in development as PrEP, as well as for HIV treatment.
“This could get us from 2 to 6 months,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Some of the subcutaneous implants look as if they could provide PrEP for up to 12 months, he added. “An implant could also avoid peaks and troughs with bi-monthly injections.”
On-demand PrEP
The other direction is on-demand. “This is for the folks that don’t want drug in their body all the time. They only want it when they need it. And a twist on that ... is actually using products that are already used with sex now but medicating them.”
On-demand rectal options include a medicated douche and a fast-dissolving insert or suppository.
Fast-dissolving vaginal inserts are also in development. “These inserts are small, easy to store, inexpensive, and possibly inapparent to a partner,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Phase 2 studies will need to determine if these products “fit into folks’ active sex lives,” he said. “There’s still a need for human-friendly, human-designed products.”
A rectal microbicide that got as far as Phase 2 research provides a cautionary tale. The concentrations and the biology worked fine, Dr. Hendrix said. “It was a gel with an applicator, and it just was not liked by the folks in the study.” He added, “Your adherence is going to be in the tank if you’ve got a product that people don’t like to use.”
‘Extremely excited’
Asked for her perspective on Dr. Hendrix’s presentation, session moderator Rasheeta D. Chandler, PhD, RN, an associate professor at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, Atlanta, said: “I am extremely excited, because I work with cisgender women, particularly with underserved women and women of color, and there’s a tendency to focus on men who have sex with men.”
“I understand, because they are the population that is most affected, but Black women are also extremely affected by this disease,” Dr. Chandler told this news organization.
Dr. Chandler applauded Dr. Hendrix for addressing women’s health needs as well and not treating PrEP in women “as an afterthought.”
“Finally, our voices are being heard that [PrEP] should be equitable across all different types of individuals who identify differently in a sexual context,” Dr. Chandler said.
More work is warranted to evaluate PrEP in other populations, including transgender men and individuals who inject drugs, Dr. Hendrix said.
For more information and updates on HIV PrEP and MPTs, visit the website of the nonprofit AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
Dr. Hendrix has disclosed receiving research grants from Gilead and Merck. Dr. Chandler has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TAMPA – Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown to be effective in many clinical and real-world studies, but concerns remain, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).
Only about 20% of people who could benefit from PrEP use the preventative medication, for example. Another concern is adherence, as regular use generally drops off over time, rarely lasting more than a few months for most people.
Furthermore, most studies to date evaluated safety and effectiveness of PrEP options among men who have sex with men. Now the focus is increasing on other populations, including women at risk of HIV exposure.
Researchers working on new forms and formulations of PrEP are looking for ways to address those challenges.
said Craig W. Hendrix, MD, professor and director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
“What I hear a lot of folks say [is] there are two or three options for PrEP, so why do we need more? We need choices that fit into a broader range of lifestyles,” Dr. Hendrix said.
For example, a medically fortified douche containing PrEP might be more likely to be used by people who use a douche before or after sex on a regular basis. This is called a “behaviorally congruent” strategy, Dr. Hendrix said.
In addition to a medical douche, formulations designed to continuously deliver PrEP, such as a subdermal implant, are in the works as well.
Another option for women, the dapivirine vaginal ring, is available internationally but not in the United States. “It was withdrawn from [Food and Drug Administration] consideration by the sponsor. I think it’s a huge loss not to have that,” Dr. Hendrix said.
During development, “frequent expulsions forced reformulation to a less stiff ring,” Dr. Hendrix said. “I don’t imagine that’s terrific, but it shows how important it is to have something that fits the anatomy and the lifestyle.”
“Currently, we have in the U.S. three licensed, really terrific options for PrEP, and they’re all for men that have sex with men and transgender women,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Three current options
The three current PrEP regimens in the United States often go by their abbreviations: F/TDF, F/TAF, and CAB-IM.
- F/TDF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada, Gilead or generics)
- F/TAF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 25 mg (Descovy, Gilead)
- CAB-IM is cabotegravir (CAB) 600 mg injection (Apretude, GlaxoSmithKline)
There is an important distinction: Daily oral PrEP with F/TDF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among all people at risk through sex or injection drug use. Daily oral PrEP with F/TAF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among people at risk through sex, excluding people at risk through receptive vaginal sex, the CDC notes.
The cost-effectiveness of the injection remains a potential issue, Dr. Hendrix said. On the other hand, “cost-effectiveness goes out the window if there is no adherence.”
An active pipeline
There are 24 new PrEP products in development, as well as 24 other multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which are combination products containing PrEP and one or two other medications.
These 48 products include 28 unique antiviral and contraceptive drugs and 12 delivery methods or formulations. “Why so many?” Dr. Hendrix asked. “Many will not make it through development.”
Pills that include HIV PrEP and contraception or PrEP and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment are being evaluated, for example. “HIV risk, pregnancy risk, and other viral STIs overlap. Ideally, you can have one target for all three. That would increase efficiency of dosing and adherence,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Dual prevention pills (DPPs) hypothetically provide HIV PrEP and contraception better than either product alone, Dr. Hendrix said. Plans are to market them as family planning or women’s health products to avoid any stigma or distrust associated with HIV PrEP. An initial rollout is planned in 2024 in sub-Saharan Africa where the unmet need is highest, he added.
“Imagine how effective this could be in women in the United States,” Dr. Hendrix said. “My hope is fourth-quarter 2024” availability in the United States.
A way to prevent STIs and HIV in an all-in-one product “would be terrific,” Dr. Hendrix said.
“I think we’re going to see a lot more innovation going in that direction. The pill is close. The other things are going to be further off because the regulatory pathway is a little more complicated.”
Longer lasting protection?
All of the innovations have gone one of two directions, Dr. Hendrix said. One direction is to make PrEP even longer acting, “so that you have even less to worry [about] in terms of adherence.”
Going forward, “most of the focus has all been on continuously acting or long-active PrEP. It’s getting longer and longer: We’ve got 2 months, and they’re looking at a 6-month subcutaneous injection,” Dr. Hendrix said. The investigational agent lenacapavir is in development as PrEP, as well as for HIV treatment.
“This could get us from 2 to 6 months,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Some of the subcutaneous implants look as if they could provide PrEP for up to 12 months, he added. “An implant could also avoid peaks and troughs with bi-monthly injections.”
On-demand PrEP
The other direction is on-demand. “This is for the folks that don’t want drug in their body all the time. They only want it when they need it. And a twist on that ... is actually using products that are already used with sex now but medicating them.”
On-demand rectal options include a medicated douche and a fast-dissolving insert or suppository.
Fast-dissolving vaginal inserts are also in development. “These inserts are small, easy to store, inexpensive, and possibly inapparent to a partner,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Phase 2 studies will need to determine if these products “fit into folks’ active sex lives,” he said. “There’s still a need for human-friendly, human-designed products.”
A rectal microbicide that got as far as Phase 2 research provides a cautionary tale. The concentrations and the biology worked fine, Dr. Hendrix said. “It was a gel with an applicator, and it just was not liked by the folks in the study.” He added, “Your adherence is going to be in the tank if you’ve got a product that people don’t like to use.”
‘Extremely excited’
Asked for her perspective on Dr. Hendrix’s presentation, session moderator Rasheeta D. Chandler, PhD, RN, an associate professor at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, Atlanta, said: “I am extremely excited, because I work with cisgender women, particularly with underserved women and women of color, and there’s a tendency to focus on men who have sex with men.”
“I understand, because they are the population that is most affected, but Black women are also extremely affected by this disease,” Dr. Chandler told this news organization.
Dr. Chandler applauded Dr. Hendrix for addressing women’s health needs as well and not treating PrEP in women “as an afterthought.”
“Finally, our voices are being heard that [PrEP] should be equitable across all different types of individuals who identify differently in a sexual context,” Dr. Chandler said.
More work is warranted to evaluate PrEP in other populations, including transgender men and individuals who inject drugs, Dr. Hendrix said.
For more information and updates on HIV PrEP and MPTs, visit the website of the nonprofit AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
Dr. Hendrix has disclosed receiving research grants from Gilead and Merck. Dr. Chandler has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TAMPA – Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown to be effective in many clinical and real-world studies, but concerns remain, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC).
Only about 20% of people who could benefit from PrEP use the preventative medication, for example. Another concern is adherence, as regular use generally drops off over time, rarely lasting more than a few months for most people.
Furthermore, most studies to date evaluated safety and effectiveness of PrEP options among men who have sex with men. Now the focus is increasing on other populations, including women at risk of HIV exposure.
Researchers working on new forms and formulations of PrEP are looking for ways to address those challenges.
said Craig W. Hendrix, MD, professor and director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
“What I hear a lot of folks say [is] there are two or three options for PrEP, so why do we need more? We need choices that fit into a broader range of lifestyles,” Dr. Hendrix said.
For example, a medically fortified douche containing PrEP might be more likely to be used by people who use a douche before or after sex on a regular basis. This is called a “behaviorally congruent” strategy, Dr. Hendrix said.
In addition to a medical douche, formulations designed to continuously deliver PrEP, such as a subdermal implant, are in the works as well.
Another option for women, the dapivirine vaginal ring, is available internationally but not in the United States. “It was withdrawn from [Food and Drug Administration] consideration by the sponsor. I think it’s a huge loss not to have that,” Dr. Hendrix said.
During development, “frequent expulsions forced reformulation to a less stiff ring,” Dr. Hendrix said. “I don’t imagine that’s terrific, but it shows how important it is to have something that fits the anatomy and the lifestyle.”
“Currently, we have in the U.S. three licensed, really terrific options for PrEP, and they’re all for men that have sex with men and transgender women,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Three current options
The three current PrEP regimens in the United States often go by their abbreviations: F/TDF, F/TAF, and CAB-IM.
- F/TDF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg (Truvada, Gilead or generics)
- F/TAF is emtricitabine (F) 200 mg in combination with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) 25 mg (Descovy, Gilead)
- CAB-IM is cabotegravir (CAB) 600 mg injection (Apretude, GlaxoSmithKline)
There is an important distinction: Daily oral PrEP with F/TDF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among all people at risk through sex or injection drug use. Daily oral PrEP with F/TAF is recommended to prevent HIV infection among people at risk through sex, excluding people at risk through receptive vaginal sex, the CDC notes.
The cost-effectiveness of the injection remains a potential issue, Dr. Hendrix said. On the other hand, “cost-effectiveness goes out the window if there is no adherence.”
An active pipeline
There are 24 new PrEP products in development, as well as 24 other multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs), which are combination products containing PrEP and one or two other medications.
These 48 products include 28 unique antiviral and contraceptive drugs and 12 delivery methods or formulations. “Why so many?” Dr. Hendrix asked. “Many will not make it through development.”
Pills that include HIV PrEP and contraception or PrEP and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment are being evaluated, for example. “HIV risk, pregnancy risk, and other viral STIs overlap. Ideally, you can have one target for all three. That would increase efficiency of dosing and adherence,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Dual prevention pills (DPPs) hypothetically provide HIV PrEP and contraception better than either product alone, Dr. Hendrix said. Plans are to market them as family planning or women’s health products to avoid any stigma or distrust associated with HIV PrEP. An initial rollout is planned in 2024 in sub-Saharan Africa where the unmet need is highest, he added.
“Imagine how effective this could be in women in the United States,” Dr. Hendrix said. “My hope is fourth-quarter 2024” availability in the United States.
A way to prevent STIs and HIV in an all-in-one product “would be terrific,” Dr. Hendrix said.
“I think we’re going to see a lot more innovation going in that direction. The pill is close. The other things are going to be further off because the regulatory pathway is a little more complicated.”
Longer lasting protection?
All of the innovations have gone one of two directions, Dr. Hendrix said. One direction is to make PrEP even longer acting, “so that you have even less to worry [about] in terms of adherence.”
Going forward, “most of the focus has all been on continuously acting or long-active PrEP. It’s getting longer and longer: We’ve got 2 months, and they’re looking at a 6-month subcutaneous injection,” Dr. Hendrix said. The investigational agent lenacapavir is in development as PrEP, as well as for HIV treatment.
“This could get us from 2 to 6 months,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Some of the subcutaneous implants look as if they could provide PrEP for up to 12 months, he added. “An implant could also avoid peaks and troughs with bi-monthly injections.”
On-demand PrEP
The other direction is on-demand. “This is for the folks that don’t want drug in their body all the time. They only want it when they need it. And a twist on that ... is actually using products that are already used with sex now but medicating them.”
On-demand rectal options include a medicated douche and a fast-dissolving insert or suppository.
Fast-dissolving vaginal inserts are also in development. “These inserts are small, easy to store, inexpensive, and possibly inapparent to a partner,” Dr. Hendrix said.
Phase 2 studies will need to determine if these products “fit into folks’ active sex lives,” he said. “There’s still a need for human-friendly, human-designed products.”
A rectal microbicide that got as far as Phase 2 research provides a cautionary tale. The concentrations and the biology worked fine, Dr. Hendrix said. “It was a gel with an applicator, and it just was not liked by the folks in the study.” He added, “Your adherence is going to be in the tank if you’ve got a product that people don’t like to use.”
‘Extremely excited’
Asked for her perspective on Dr. Hendrix’s presentation, session moderator Rasheeta D. Chandler, PhD, RN, an associate professor at the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, Atlanta, said: “I am extremely excited, because I work with cisgender women, particularly with underserved women and women of color, and there’s a tendency to focus on men who have sex with men.”
“I understand, because they are the population that is most affected, but Black women are also extremely affected by this disease,” Dr. Chandler told this news organization.
Dr. Chandler applauded Dr. Hendrix for addressing women’s health needs as well and not treating PrEP in women “as an afterthought.”
“Finally, our voices are being heard that [PrEP] should be equitable across all different types of individuals who identify differently in a sexual context,” Dr. Chandler said.
More work is warranted to evaluate PrEP in other populations, including transgender men and individuals who inject drugs, Dr. Hendrix said.
For more information and updates on HIV PrEP and MPTs, visit the website of the nonprofit AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
Dr. Hendrix has disclosed receiving research grants from Gilead and Merck. Dr. Chandler has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANAC 2022
Experts explain the ‘perfect storm’ of rampant RSV and flu
Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.
RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.
RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.
“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.
“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.
Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.
With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.
“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.
Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.
“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.
Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
A leading theory
Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?
It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.
“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”
He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.
“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.
“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
‘A perfect storm’
“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”
RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.
Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”
The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.
He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
A phenomenon by any other name
Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.
“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.
“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.
In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”
The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
How likely are coinfections?
With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?
Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.
“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.
“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.
Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.
Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”
There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.
“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
Future concerns
The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”
Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.
“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.
“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.
RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.
RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.
“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.
“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.
Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.
With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.
“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.
Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.
“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.
Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
A leading theory
Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?
It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.
“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”
He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.
“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.
“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
‘A perfect storm’
“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”
RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.
Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”
The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.
He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
A phenomenon by any other name
Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.
“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.
“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.
In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”
The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
How likely are coinfections?
With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?
Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.
“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.
“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.
Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.
Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”
There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.
“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
Future concerns
The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”
Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.
“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.
“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Headlines over the past few weeks are ringing the alarm about earlier and more serious influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreaks compared with previous years. Add COVID-19 to the mix and you have a dangerous mash of viruses that have many experts calling for caution and searching for explanations.
RSV and the flu “are certainly getting more attention, and they’re getting more attention for two reasons,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
“The first is that they’re both extraordinarily early. The second is that they’re both out there spreading very, very rapidly,” he told this news organization.
RSV usually follows a seasonal pattern with cases peaking in January and February. Both viruses tend to hit different regions of the country at different times, and that’s not the case in 2022.
“This is particularly striking for RSV, which usually doesn’t affect the entire country simultaneously,” Dr. Schaffner said.
“Yes, RSV is causing many more hospitalizations and earlier than any previously recorded season in the U.S.,” according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on RSV hospitalizations, said Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.
Although there could be some increase in diagnoses because of increased awareness, the jump in RSV and flu cases “is a real phenomenon for multiple reasons,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.
With fewer COVID-related restrictions, people are moving around more. Also, during fall and winter, people tend to gather indoors. Colder temperatures and lower humidity contribute as well, Dr. Chin-Hong said, because “the droplets are just simply lighter.
“I think those are all factors,” he told this news organization.
Paul Auwaerter, MD, agreed that there are likely multiple causes for the unusual timing and severity of RSV and flu this year.
“Change in behaviors is a leading cause,” said the clinical director for the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. More people returning to the workplace and children going to school without masks are examples, he added.
Less exposure to these three viruses also means there was less immune boosting among existing populations, he said. This can lead to “larger susceptible populations, especially infants and younger children, due to the relative absence of circulating virus in past years.”
A leading theory
Are we paying a price now for people following the edicts from officials to mask up, stand apart, and take other personal and public health precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic?
It’s possible, but that may not be the whole story.
“When it comes to RSV, I think that theory of isolation, social distancing, mask wearing, and not attending schools is a very valid one,” Dr. Schaffner said. “That’s everybody’s favorite [reason].”
He said he is confident that the jump in RSV cases is being driven by previous COVID public health protections. However, he’s “a little more cautious about influenza, in part because influenza is so variable.
“Like people in influenza say, if you’ve seen one influenza season, you’ve seen one influenza season,” Dr. Schaffner said.
“There’s a lot of debate,” he added. “Nobody can say definitively whether the immune deficit or debt is a consequence of not being stimulated and restimulated by the influenza virus over the past two seasons.”
‘A perfect storm’
“Now you kind of have the perfect storm,” Dr. Chin-Hong said. “It’s not a good situation for COVID with the variants that are emerging. For influenza, not having seen a lot of influenza the last 2 years, we’re probably more susceptible to getting infected.”
RSV cases rose during summer 2021, but now the weather is colder, and people are interacting more closely. “And it’s very, very transmissible,” he said.
Dr. Chin-Hong also predicted that “even though we don’t have a lot of COVID now, COVID will probably pick up.”
The rise in RSV was unexpected by some experts. “This early influenza is also a bit of a surprise and may be influenced by the fact that lots of us are going back and seeing each other again close-to-close, face-to-face in many enclosed environments,” Dr. Schaffner said.
He estimated the 2022-2023 flu season started 4-6 weeks early “and it’s taken off like a rocket. It started in the Southeast, quickly went to the Southwest and up the East Coast. Now it’s moving dramatically through the Midwest and will continue. It’s quite sure to hit the West Coast if it isn’t there already.”
A phenomenon by any other name
Some are calling the situation an “immunity debt,” while others dub it an “immunity pause” or an “immunity deficit.” Many physicians and immunologists have taken to social media to push back on the term “immunity debt,” saying it’s a mischaracterization that is being used to vilify COVID precautions, such as masking, social distancing, and other protective measures taken during the pandemic.
“I prefer the term ‘immunity gap’ ... which is more established in the epidemiology literature, especially given the politicization of the term ‘immunity debt’ by folks recently,” Dr. Messacar said.
“To me, the immunity gap is a scientific observation, not a political argument,” he added.
In a July 2022 publication in The Lancet, Dr. Messacar and his colleagues stated that “decreased exposure to endemic viruses created an immunity gap – a group of susceptible individuals who avoided infection and therefore lack pathogen-specific immunity to protect against future infection. Decreases in childhood vaccinations with pandemic disruptions to health care delivery contribute to this immunity gap for vaccine-preventable diseases, such as influenza,measles, and polio.”
The researchers noted that because of isolation during the pandemic, older children and newborns are being exposed to RSV for the first time. Returning to birthday parties, playing with friends, and going to school without masks means “children are being exposed to RSV, and that’s likely the reason that RSV is moving early and very, very substantially through this now expanded pool of susceptible children,” Dr. Schaffner said.
How likely are coinfections?
With peaks in RSV, flu, and COVID-19 cases each predicted in the coming months, how likely is it that someone could get sick with more than one infection at the same time?
Early in the pandemic, coinfection with COVID and the flu was reported in people at some centers on the West Coast, Dr. Auwaerter said. Now, however, “the unpredictable nature of the Omicron subvariants and the potential for further change, along with the never-before-seen significant lessening of influenza over 2 years, leave little for predictability.
“I do think it is less likely, given the extent of immunity now to SARS-CoV-2 in the population,” Dr. Auwaerter said.
“I most worry about viral coinfections ... in people with suppressed immune systems if we have high community rates of the SARS-CoV-2 and influenza circulating this fall and winter,” he added.
Studies during the pandemic suggest that coinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and another respiratory virus were either rare or nonexistent.
Dr. Schaffner said these findings align with his experience at Vanderbilt University, which is part of a CDC-sponsored network that tracks laboratory-confirmed RSV, flu, and COVID cases among people in the hospital. “Coinfections are, at least to date, very unusual.”
There needs to be an asterisk next to that, Dr. Schaffner added. “Looking back over the last 2 years, we’ve had very little influenza, and we’ve had curtailed RSV seasons. So there hasn’t been a whole lot of opportunity for dual infections to occur.
“So this year may be more revelatory as we go forward,” he said.
Future concerns
The future is uncertain, Dr. Messacar and colleagues wrote in The Lancet: “Crucially, the patterns of these returning viral outbreaks have been heterogeneous across locations, populations, and pathogens, making predictions and preparations challenging.”
Dr. Chin-Hong used a horse race analogy to illustrate the situation now and going forward. RSV is the front-running horse, and influenza is running behind but trying to catch up. “And then COVID is the dark horse. It’s trailing the race right now – but all these variants are giving the horse extra supplements.
“And the COVID horse is probably going to be very competitive with the front-runner,” he said.
“We’re just at the beginning of the race right now,” Dr. Chin-Hong said, “so that’s why we’re worried that these three [viruses] will be even more pronounced come later in the year.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Guselkumab and golimumab: Better together for ulcerative colitis
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – , a phase 2a study demonstrates.
Researchers compared the combination therapy of guselkumab and golimumab (both from Janssen) for 12 weeks, followed by guselkumab monotherapy up to week 38, versus either agent as monotherapy for the full 38 weeks.
Guselkumab is an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist being studied to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Golimumab is a TNF-alpha antagonist being evaluated for ulcerative colitis.
The combination induction strategy “achieved higher rates of clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, composite endpoint of histologic remission, and endoscopic improvement,” said Brian G. Feagan, MD, senior scientific director at the contract research organization Alimentiv and a gastroenterologist at Western University in London, Ont.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Study design
The current research builds on previous week 12 VEGA study results. The earlier findings indicated that blocking interleukin-23p19 by guselkumab and TNF-alpha with golimumab was superior on multiple measures, compared with monotherapy.
The new findings are from a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study that included 214 adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Participants were naive to TNF-alpha antagonists and refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy.
Of the participants, 71 were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab, 200 mg intravenous (IV) at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8, plus 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 weeks.
Another 72 participants received golimumab, 200 mg SC at baseline, and 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and every 4 weeks thereafter.
The combination group of 71 participants received guselkumab 200 mg IV and golimumab 200 mg SC at baseline, followed by golimumab 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and guselkumab 200 mg IV at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, this group switched to monotherapy with guselkumab, 100 mg SC every 8 weeks.
Overall, 13% of patients discontinued treatment prior to week 34, the time of final dose of study intervention.
Dr. Feagan noted that they did not see differences between any adverse event, serious adverse event, or adverse event leading to discontinuation among the treatment groups.
Key findings through week 38
The rate of clinical remission in the combination group was 44%. The rate was lower with guselkumab monotherapy at 31% and golimumab monotherapy at 22% at week 38. These percentages were based on a full Mayo Score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.
At the same time, the rates of clinical remission by modified Mayo score also favored the combination group at 48%, followed by 31% in the guselkumab group and 21% in the golimumab cohort.
Endoscopic improvement, endoscopic normalization, histologic remission, and composite histologic-endoscopic endpoints were also greater in the combination group than in the monotherapy groups.
“Quite striking differences were maintained up to week 38,” Dr. Feagan said. “This combination treatment warrants further investigation, and phase 3 trials are underway.”
He added that, while they were concerned about serious infection, they did not see any differences, with only two serious infections in each of the three groups.
Opportunistic infections were reported for two patients in the combination group: extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus colitis. No opportunistic infections occurred in the monotherapy groups.
Valuable data
“The early study results, such as the VEGA study, appear promising for combination biologics with a good safety profile,” Jean-Paul Achkar, MD, staff physician in the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Cleveland Clinic and the Kenneth Rainin Endowed Chair for IBD Research, said when asked to comment.
“These data are particularly valuable as we have seemingly reached a therapeutic response ceiling for single-biologic therapy, and we need to determine the added benefit and safety profile of a combination of two biologics or the combination of a biologic and a small molecule,” added Dr. Achkar, who served as the session comoderator.
A meeting attendee asked about the likelihood of regulatory approval for this combination based on evidence like this study.
“I think they have to,” Dr. Feagan said. “We’ve probably seen our best results yet in Crohn’s disease, and we’re still at 50% [response rate for monotherapy]. If we’re ever going to come to terms with IBD, I don’t think it’s monotherapy.”
Dr. Feagan added that with combination therapy, “physicians will often worry about economics, but I think that’s a surrogate for their concerns about infection.”
However, he noted that “the better the agents we have, the better the incremental cost effectiveness. So, I don’t think economics is the issue; the issue is safety.”
Another meeting attendee asked if the results might apply to other biologic combinations.
“This model was picked to show the additive effect of the anti-p19 and the TNF antagonist,” Dr. Feagan said.
Similar results could be expected with a combination of treatments from the same classes, he said, but the treatment potential of other drug-class combination is unclear.
The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Feagan reports being a consultant for Janssen. Dr. Achkar reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – , a phase 2a study demonstrates.
Researchers compared the combination therapy of guselkumab and golimumab (both from Janssen) for 12 weeks, followed by guselkumab monotherapy up to week 38, versus either agent as monotherapy for the full 38 weeks.
Guselkumab is an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist being studied to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Golimumab is a TNF-alpha antagonist being evaluated for ulcerative colitis.
The combination induction strategy “achieved higher rates of clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, composite endpoint of histologic remission, and endoscopic improvement,” said Brian G. Feagan, MD, senior scientific director at the contract research organization Alimentiv and a gastroenterologist at Western University in London, Ont.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Study design
The current research builds on previous week 12 VEGA study results. The earlier findings indicated that blocking interleukin-23p19 by guselkumab and TNF-alpha with golimumab was superior on multiple measures, compared with monotherapy.
The new findings are from a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study that included 214 adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Participants were naive to TNF-alpha antagonists and refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy.
Of the participants, 71 were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab, 200 mg intravenous (IV) at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8, plus 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 weeks.
Another 72 participants received golimumab, 200 mg SC at baseline, and 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and every 4 weeks thereafter.
The combination group of 71 participants received guselkumab 200 mg IV and golimumab 200 mg SC at baseline, followed by golimumab 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and guselkumab 200 mg IV at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, this group switched to monotherapy with guselkumab, 100 mg SC every 8 weeks.
Overall, 13% of patients discontinued treatment prior to week 34, the time of final dose of study intervention.
Dr. Feagan noted that they did not see differences between any adverse event, serious adverse event, or adverse event leading to discontinuation among the treatment groups.
Key findings through week 38
The rate of clinical remission in the combination group was 44%. The rate was lower with guselkumab monotherapy at 31% and golimumab monotherapy at 22% at week 38. These percentages were based on a full Mayo Score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.
At the same time, the rates of clinical remission by modified Mayo score also favored the combination group at 48%, followed by 31% in the guselkumab group and 21% in the golimumab cohort.
Endoscopic improvement, endoscopic normalization, histologic remission, and composite histologic-endoscopic endpoints were also greater in the combination group than in the monotherapy groups.
“Quite striking differences were maintained up to week 38,” Dr. Feagan said. “This combination treatment warrants further investigation, and phase 3 trials are underway.”
He added that, while they were concerned about serious infection, they did not see any differences, with only two serious infections in each of the three groups.
Opportunistic infections were reported for two patients in the combination group: extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus colitis. No opportunistic infections occurred in the monotherapy groups.
Valuable data
“The early study results, such as the VEGA study, appear promising for combination biologics with a good safety profile,” Jean-Paul Achkar, MD, staff physician in the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Cleveland Clinic and the Kenneth Rainin Endowed Chair for IBD Research, said when asked to comment.
“These data are particularly valuable as we have seemingly reached a therapeutic response ceiling for single-biologic therapy, and we need to determine the added benefit and safety profile of a combination of two biologics or the combination of a biologic and a small molecule,” added Dr. Achkar, who served as the session comoderator.
A meeting attendee asked about the likelihood of regulatory approval for this combination based on evidence like this study.
“I think they have to,” Dr. Feagan said. “We’ve probably seen our best results yet in Crohn’s disease, and we’re still at 50% [response rate for monotherapy]. If we’re ever going to come to terms with IBD, I don’t think it’s monotherapy.”
Dr. Feagan added that with combination therapy, “physicians will often worry about economics, but I think that’s a surrogate for their concerns about infection.”
However, he noted that “the better the agents we have, the better the incremental cost effectiveness. So, I don’t think economics is the issue; the issue is safety.”
Another meeting attendee asked if the results might apply to other biologic combinations.
“This model was picked to show the additive effect of the anti-p19 and the TNF antagonist,” Dr. Feagan said.
Similar results could be expected with a combination of treatments from the same classes, he said, but the treatment potential of other drug-class combination is unclear.
The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Feagan reports being a consultant for Janssen. Dr. Achkar reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – , a phase 2a study demonstrates.
Researchers compared the combination therapy of guselkumab and golimumab (both from Janssen) for 12 weeks, followed by guselkumab monotherapy up to week 38, versus either agent as monotherapy for the full 38 weeks.
Guselkumab is an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist being studied to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Golimumab is a TNF-alpha antagonist being evaluated for ulcerative colitis.
The combination induction strategy “achieved higher rates of clinical remission, endoscopic improvement, composite endpoint of histologic remission, and endoscopic improvement,” said Brian G. Feagan, MD, senior scientific director at the contract research organization Alimentiv and a gastroenterologist at Western University in London, Ont.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Study design
The current research builds on previous week 12 VEGA study results. The earlier findings indicated that blocking interleukin-23p19 by guselkumab and TNF-alpha with golimumab was superior on multiple measures, compared with monotherapy.
The new findings are from a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study that included 214 adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Participants were naive to TNF-alpha antagonists and refractory or intolerant to conventional therapy.
Of the participants, 71 were randomly assigned to receive guselkumab, 200 mg intravenous (IV) at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8, plus 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 8 weeks.
Another 72 participants received golimumab, 200 mg SC at baseline, and 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and every 4 weeks thereafter.
The combination group of 71 participants received guselkumab 200 mg IV and golimumab 200 mg SC at baseline, followed by golimumab 100 mg SC at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and guselkumab 200 mg IV at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, this group switched to monotherapy with guselkumab, 100 mg SC every 8 weeks.
Overall, 13% of patients discontinued treatment prior to week 34, the time of final dose of study intervention.
Dr. Feagan noted that they did not see differences between any adverse event, serious adverse event, or adverse event leading to discontinuation among the treatment groups.
Key findings through week 38
The rate of clinical remission in the combination group was 44%. The rate was lower with guselkumab monotherapy at 31% and golimumab monotherapy at 22% at week 38. These percentages were based on a full Mayo Score of 2 or less and no individual subscore greater than 1.
At the same time, the rates of clinical remission by modified Mayo score also favored the combination group at 48%, followed by 31% in the guselkumab group and 21% in the golimumab cohort.
Endoscopic improvement, endoscopic normalization, histologic remission, and composite histologic-endoscopic endpoints were also greater in the combination group than in the monotherapy groups.
“Quite striking differences were maintained up to week 38,” Dr. Feagan said. “This combination treatment warrants further investigation, and phase 3 trials are underway.”
He added that, while they were concerned about serious infection, they did not see any differences, with only two serious infections in each of the three groups.
Opportunistic infections were reported for two patients in the combination group: extrapulmonary tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus colitis. No opportunistic infections occurred in the monotherapy groups.
Valuable data
“The early study results, such as the VEGA study, appear promising for combination biologics with a good safety profile,” Jean-Paul Achkar, MD, staff physician in the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Cleveland Clinic and the Kenneth Rainin Endowed Chair for IBD Research, said when asked to comment.
“These data are particularly valuable as we have seemingly reached a therapeutic response ceiling for single-biologic therapy, and we need to determine the added benefit and safety profile of a combination of two biologics or the combination of a biologic and a small molecule,” added Dr. Achkar, who served as the session comoderator.
A meeting attendee asked about the likelihood of regulatory approval for this combination based on evidence like this study.
“I think they have to,” Dr. Feagan said. “We’ve probably seen our best results yet in Crohn’s disease, and we’re still at 50% [response rate for monotherapy]. If we’re ever going to come to terms with IBD, I don’t think it’s monotherapy.”
Dr. Feagan added that with combination therapy, “physicians will often worry about economics, but I think that’s a surrogate for their concerns about infection.”
However, he noted that “the better the agents we have, the better the incremental cost effectiveness. So, I don’t think economics is the issue; the issue is safety.”
Another meeting attendee asked if the results might apply to other biologic combinations.
“This model was picked to show the additive effect of the anti-p19 and the TNF antagonist,” Dr. Feagan said.
Similar results could be expected with a combination of treatments from the same classes, he said, but the treatment potential of other drug-class combination is unclear.
The study was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Feagan reports being a consultant for Janssen. Dr. Achkar reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACG 2022
For many, long COVID’s impacts go on and on, major study says
in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.
Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly.
This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.
“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Ruling out coincidence
This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said.
Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms.
Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher.
Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.
Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
Vaccination validated
On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living.
The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
‘More long COVID than ever before’
“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.”
Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.
Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
Support the whole person
The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”
Still, Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones.
“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner.
She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”
Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example.
“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing.
In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.
“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
Limitations of the study
Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted.
Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted.
Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”
“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”
“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.
Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly.
This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.
“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Ruling out coincidence
This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said.
Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms.
Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher.
Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.
Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
Vaccination validated
On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living.
The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
‘More long COVID than ever before’
“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.”
Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.
Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
Support the whole person
The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”
Still, Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones.
“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner.
She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”
Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example.
“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing.
In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.
“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
Limitations of the study
Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted.
Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted.
Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”
“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”
“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.
Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly.
This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.
“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Ruling out coincidence
This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said.
Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms.
Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher.
Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.
Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
Vaccination validated
On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living.
The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
‘More long COVID than ever before’
“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.”
Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.
Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
Support the whole person
The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”
Still, Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones.
“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner.
She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”
Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example.
“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing.
In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.
“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
Limitations of the study
Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted.
Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted.
Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”
“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”
“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Ancient DNA discoveries lead to Nobel Prize in medicine and help explain how humans evolved
It all started with a 40,000-year-old bone. That Neanderthal bone contained enough DNA that Dr. Pääbo could start decades of research showing us modern humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct from other now-extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.
The connection to physiology and medicine comes from the genes some modern humans carry from these ancient relatives. For example, Neanderthal genes transferred to Homo sapiens can explain how our immune systems react to different infections. Dr. Pääbo also discovered that a copy of a gene from another extinct relative, the Denisovans, gives modern-day Tibetans a survival advantage for living at high altitudes.
“Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. He also made the sensational discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova,” the Nobel Committee stated in a news release announcing the award. “Importantly, [Dr.] Pääbo also found that gene transfer had occurred from these now extinct hominins to Homo sapiens following the migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.”
Dr. Pääbo’s scientific discoveries only happened by pairing ancient DNA evidence with modern technology. An initial discovery occurred when Dr. Pääbo worked at the University of Munich (Germany), where he sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bone. The sequencing of the human genome in the 1990s coupled with genomic DNA recovered from ancient bones allowed Dr. Pääbo to compare our DNA with that of Neanderthals and Denisovans. A lot of this work happened at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which Dr. Pääbo founded in 1999 and where he still works today.
In 2008, a different 40,000-year-old fragment from a finger bone was discovered in a Denisova cave in the southern part of Siberia. Fortunately for Dr. Pääbo and his team, the DNA was well preserved and could be sequenced.
“The results caused a sensation: the DNA sequence was unique when compared to all known sequences from Neanderthals and present-day humans,” the Nobel Committee said.
In a big picture sense, Dr. Pääbo’s research helps answer where modern-day humans come from and how we interacted with our hominin relatives tens of thousands of years ago. His research is so pioneering that it created a new field of science called paleogenomics, the Nobel Committee noted.
“On behalf of The Physiological Society, I am delighted to congratulate Svante Pääbo for being awarded the Nobel Prize. His pioneering research shines a light on the physiology that makes humans unique from their ancestors,” David Paterson, DPhil, president of The Physiological Society, said in a statement.
“This is an important science discovery in evolutionary biology,” Dr. Paterson added. “Ascribing physiological function to highly conserved mitochondrial genes has been important in our understanding in high-altitude acclimatization as populations move and adapt to new environments, and how genetic variants affect us on a day-to-day basis in health and disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It all started with a 40,000-year-old bone. That Neanderthal bone contained enough DNA that Dr. Pääbo could start decades of research showing us modern humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct from other now-extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.
The connection to physiology and medicine comes from the genes some modern humans carry from these ancient relatives. For example, Neanderthal genes transferred to Homo sapiens can explain how our immune systems react to different infections. Dr. Pääbo also discovered that a copy of a gene from another extinct relative, the Denisovans, gives modern-day Tibetans a survival advantage for living at high altitudes.
“Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. He also made the sensational discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova,” the Nobel Committee stated in a news release announcing the award. “Importantly, [Dr.] Pääbo also found that gene transfer had occurred from these now extinct hominins to Homo sapiens following the migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.”
Dr. Pääbo’s scientific discoveries only happened by pairing ancient DNA evidence with modern technology. An initial discovery occurred when Dr. Pääbo worked at the University of Munich (Germany), where he sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bone. The sequencing of the human genome in the 1990s coupled with genomic DNA recovered from ancient bones allowed Dr. Pääbo to compare our DNA with that of Neanderthals and Denisovans. A lot of this work happened at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which Dr. Pääbo founded in 1999 and where he still works today.
In 2008, a different 40,000-year-old fragment from a finger bone was discovered in a Denisova cave in the southern part of Siberia. Fortunately for Dr. Pääbo and his team, the DNA was well preserved and could be sequenced.
“The results caused a sensation: the DNA sequence was unique when compared to all known sequences from Neanderthals and present-day humans,” the Nobel Committee said.
In a big picture sense, Dr. Pääbo’s research helps answer where modern-day humans come from and how we interacted with our hominin relatives tens of thousands of years ago. His research is so pioneering that it created a new field of science called paleogenomics, the Nobel Committee noted.
“On behalf of The Physiological Society, I am delighted to congratulate Svante Pääbo for being awarded the Nobel Prize. His pioneering research shines a light on the physiology that makes humans unique from their ancestors,” David Paterson, DPhil, president of The Physiological Society, said in a statement.
“This is an important science discovery in evolutionary biology,” Dr. Paterson added. “Ascribing physiological function to highly conserved mitochondrial genes has been important in our understanding in high-altitude acclimatization as populations move and adapt to new environments, and how genetic variants affect us on a day-to-day basis in health and disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It all started with a 40,000-year-old bone. That Neanderthal bone contained enough DNA that Dr. Pääbo could start decades of research showing us modern humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically distinct from other now-extinct hominins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.
The connection to physiology and medicine comes from the genes some modern humans carry from these ancient relatives. For example, Neanderthal genes transferred to Homo sapiens can explain how our immune systems react to different infections. Dr. Pääbo also discovered that a copy of a gene from another extinct relative, the Denisovans, gives modern-day Tibetans a survival advantage for living at high altitudes.
“Svante Pääbo accomplished something seemingly impossible: sequencing the genome of the Neanderthal, an extinct relative of present-day humans. He also made the sensational discovery of a previously unknown hominin, Denisova,” the Nobel Committee stated in a news release announcing the award. “Importantly, [Dr.] Pääbo also found that gene transfer had occurred from these now extinct hominins to Homo sapiens following the migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago.”
Dr. Pääbo’s scientific discoveries only happened by pairing ancient DNA evidence with modern technology. An initial discovery occurred when Dr. Pääbo worked at the University of Munich (Germany), where he sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the 40,000-year-old Neanderthal bone. The sequencing of the human genome in the 1990s coupled with genomic DNA recovered from ancient bones allowed Dr. Pääbo to compare our DNA with that of Neanderthals and Denisovans. A lot of this work happened at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, which Dr. Pääbo founded in 1999 and where he still works today.
In 2008, a different 40,000-year-old fragment from a finger bone was discovered in a Denisova cave in the southern part of Siberia. Fortunately for Dr. Pääbo and his team, the DNA was well preserved and could be sequenced.
“The results caused a sensation: the DNA sequence was unique when compared to all known sequences from Neanderthals and present-day humans,” the Nobel Committee said.
In a big picture sense, Dr. Pääbo’s research helps answer where modern-day humans come from and how we interacted with our hominin relatives tens of thousands of years ago. His research is so pioneering that it created a new field of science called paleogenomics, the Nobel Committee noted.
“On behalf of The Physiological Society, I am delighted to congratulate Svante Pääbo for being awarded the Nobel Prize. His pioneering research shines a light on the physiology that makes humans unique from their ancestors,” David Paterson, DPhil, president of The Physiological Society, said in a statement.
“This is an important science discovery in evolutionary biology,” Dr. Paterson added. “Ascribing physiological function to highly conserved mitochondrial genes has been important in our understanding in high-altitude acclimatization as populations move and adapt to new environments, and how genetic variants affect us on a day-to-day basis in health and disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why some infectious disease docs are ‘encouraged’ by new bivalent COVID vaccines
A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.
“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”
Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.
“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
Man versus mouse
Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”
The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.
Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.
“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
A ‘glass half full’ perspective
When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.
“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.
“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”
Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.
Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
More motivational messaging needed
Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.
“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.
He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.
“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”
Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”
Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.
“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”
Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.
“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
Man versus mouse
Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”
The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.
Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.
“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
A ‘glass half full’ perspective
When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.
“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.
“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”
Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.
Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
More motivational messaging needed
Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.
“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.
He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.
“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”
Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”
Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.
“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”
Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.
“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
Man versus mouse
Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”
The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.
Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.
“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
A ‘glass half full’ perspective
When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.
“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.
“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”
Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.
Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
More motivational messaging needed
Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.
“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.
He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.
“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”
Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”
Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long COVID doubles risk of some serious outcomes in children, teens
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.
“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.
The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.
The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Less is known about long COVID in children
Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.
To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.
Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.
“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.
“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.
A ‘wake-up call’
The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.
“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
Still early days
The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?
Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.
The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.
Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.
“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.
The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.
The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Less is known about long COVID in children
Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.
To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.
Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.
“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.
“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.
A ‘wake-up call’
The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.
“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
Still early days
The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?
Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.
The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.
Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.
“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.
The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.
The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Less is known about long COVID in children
Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.
To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.
Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.
“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.
“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.
A ‘wake-up call’
The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.
“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
Still early days
The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?
Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.
The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.
Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE MMWR
Pfizer plans a vaccine to target all coronaviruses
Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported.
“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”
“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.
Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported.
“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”
“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.
Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.
With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.
Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported.
“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”
“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.
SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).
The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.
Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Surgeons, who see it up close, offer ways to stop gun violence
Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”
These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.
“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
Firsthand perspective
“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.
“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.
One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.
“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.
On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”
Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.
“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings
“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.
“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.
“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
A public health crisis
“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.
A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.
The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”
“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”
The recommendations address these areas:
- Gun ownership
- Firearm registration
- Licensure
- Education and training
- Ownership responsibilities
- Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
- Safety innovation and technology
- Research
- The culture of violence
- Social isolation and mental health
For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”
This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.
“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.
For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.
The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
Research and reporting reforms
The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.
“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”
Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.
In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.
Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.
“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
The time is now
Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.
“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”
These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.
“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
Firsthand perspective
“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.
“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.
One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.
“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.
On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”
Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.
“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings
“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.
“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.
“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
A public health crisis
“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.
A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.
The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”
“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”
The recommendations address these areas:
- Gun ownership
- Firearm registration
- Licensure
- Education and training
- Ownership responsibilities
- Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
- Safety innovation and technology
- Research
- The culture of violence
- Social isolation and mental health
For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”
This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.
“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.
For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.
The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
Research and reporting reforms
The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.
“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”
Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.
In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.
Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.
“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
The time is now
Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.
“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Their strategies can work regardless of where you stand on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, said Patricia Turner, MD. “Our proposals are embraced by both gun owners and non–gun owners alike, and we are unique in that regard.”
These “implementable solutions” could prevent the next massacre, Dr. Turner, executive director of the American College of Surgeons, said during a news briefing the group sponsored on June 2.
“Our future – indeed all of our futures – depend on our ability to find durable, actionable steps that we can implement tomorrow to save lives,” she said.
Firsthand perspective
“Sadly I’m here today as a trauma surgeon who has cared for two of the largest mass shootings in modern U.S. history,” said Ronald Stewart, MD, chair of the department of surgery at University Hospital in San Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Stewart treated victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church shooting – where 27 people died, including the shooter – and the recent Uvalde school shooting, both in Texas.
“The injuries inflicted by high-velocity weapons used at both of these attacks are horrific. A high-capacity, magazine-fed automatic rifle such as the AR-15 causes extremely destructive tissue wounds,” he said.
One of the group’s proposals is to increase the regulation of high-velocity weapons, including AR-15s.
“These wounds are horribly lethal at close range, and sadly, most victims do not survive long enough to make it to a trauma center,” Dr. Stewart said.
On a positive note, “all of our current [Uvalde] patients are improving, which really brings us joy in this dark time,” he said. “But all of them have a long road to deal with recovery with both the physical and emotional impact of their injuries.”
Jeffrey Kerby, MD, agreed.
“Trauma surgeons see the short-term physical effects of these injuries and watch patients struggle with the long-term impact of these wounds,” said Dr. Kerby, director of trauma and acute care surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Surgeons feel ‘profound impact’ of shootings
“Firearm violence has a profound impact on surgeons, and we are the undisputed subject matter experts in treating the tragic results,” said Patrick Bailey, MD, medical director for advocacy at the American College of Surgeons.
“This impacts surgeons as well,” said Dr. Kerby, chair of the Committee on Trauma for the surgeons’ group. “We are human, and we can’t help but share in the grief, the pain, and the suffering that our patients endure.
“As a pediatric surgeon ... I have too often witnessed the impact of firearm violence, and obviously, the devastation extends beyond the victims to their families,” he said. “To put it succinctly, in our culture, parents are not supposed to be put in a position of burying their children.”
A public health crisis
“It’s important to recognize that we’ve been talking about a public health approach,” said Eileen Bulger, MD, acting chief of the trauma division at the University of Washington in Seattle. That strategy is important for engaging both firearm owners and communities that have a higher risk for firearm violence, she said.
A committee of the American College of Surgeons developed specific recommendations in 2018, which are still valid today. The group brought together surgeons from across the U.S. including “passionate firearm owners and experts in firearm safety,” Dr. Bulger said.
The committee, for example, agreed on 10 specific recommendations “that we believe are bipartisan and could have an immediate impact in saving lives.”
“I’m a lifelong gun owner,” Dr. Bailey said, emphasizing that the team’s process included participation and perspective from other surgeons “who, like me, are also gun owners, but gun owners who also seek to reduce the impact of firearm violence in our country.”
The recommendations address these areas:
- Gun ownership
- Firearm registration
- Licensure
- Education and training
- Ownership responsibilities
- Mandatory reporting and risk reduction
- Safety innovation and technology
- Research
- The culture of violence
- Social isolation and mental health
For example, “we currently have certain classes of weapons with significant offensive capability,” Dr. Bulger said, “that are appropriately restricted and regulated under the National Firearms Act as Class 3 weapons.”
This group includes fully automatic machine guns, explosive devices, and short-barrel shotguns.
“We recommend a formal reassessment of the firearms designated within each of these national firearms classifications,” Dr. Bulger said.
For example, high-capacity, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15, should be considered for reclassification as NFA Class 3 firearms, or they should get a new designation with tighter regulation.
The ACS endorses formal firearm safety training for all new gun owners. Also, owners who do not provide reasonably safe firearm storage should be held responsible for events related to the discharge of their firearms, Dr. Bulger said. And people who are deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others through firearm ownership should be temporarily or permanently restricted, with due process.
Research and reporting reforms
The ACS is also calling for research on firearm injuries and firearm injury prevention to be federally funded, Dr. Bulger said. The research should be done in a nonpartisan manner, she said.
“We have concerns that the manner and tone in which information is released to the public may lead to copycat mass killers,” she said. “The ACS recommends that law enforcement officials and the press take steps to eliminate the notoriety of the shooter, for example.”
Dr. Bulger also addressed the mental health angle. “We encourage recognition of mental health warning signs and social isolation by teachers, counselors, peers, and parents.” When identified, immediate referral to professionals is needed.
In addition to these recommendations, another team from the American College of Surgeons has published an overview of ways to address the inequities that contribute to violence. “We advocate for federal funding to support the development of hospital-based and community programs for violence intervention and prevention,” Dr. Bulger said.
Dr. Bailey said that as a gun owner himself, he thinks other gun owners would support these recommendations.
“I do not believe that the steps recommended ... pose undue burden on the rights of individual gun owners,” he said.
The time is now
Most firearm injuries are not from mass shooting events, Dr. Kerby said.
“My own trauma center has seen a 40% increase in the number of firearm injuries just in the last 2 years,” he added, “and these numbers continue to grow.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CRC screening: Blood test accuracy compared to colonoscopy
The first prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of a blood test for people being screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) revealed a high sensitivity and specificity.
At 90% specificity, the blood assay (Guardant Health) was 100% sensitive for detecting CRC. At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 88%.
The blood assay detects circulating tumor DNA from cancer in the bloodstream, which is then analyzed for multiple factors, including cancer genetics and methylation.
Lead author Paloma Peinado, MD, a medical oncologist at HM Hospitales, Madrid, and colleagues, called the results similar to those seen with noninvasive, stool-based testing, noting that the “sensitivity and specificity of the blood-based test reached clinically significant thresholds.”
“The reported performance, combined with a more acceptable mode of testing, suggests that this blood-based test may be a viable CRC screening option,” they added.
The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2022, held virtually and in San Diego.
Dr. Peinado and colleagues studied 557 people who agreed to have blood drawn at the time of their colonoscopy. They enrolled participants at four hospitals in Spain.
One-third of participants (33%) who sought CRC screening were at average risk. Of the remainder, 49% were symptomatic, 11% had a positive family history of CRC, 6% had a positive stool-based test result, and 1% presented for colonoscopy for other reasons.
The prospective observational study included people age 45-84 years. The median age of participants was 55 years, and just over half (52%) were women.
The prevalence rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma was 2.6%. Eight patients had stage I cancer, three had stage II cancer, two had stage III cancer, and two had stage IV cancer.
The study was designed to follow patients for 1 year after screening. To date, 14% of participants have reached this point.
Not a general population screening study
“We definitely we need more studies like this,” said Barbara H. Jung, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, when asked to comment on the study.
“We need to find other ways to detect colorectal cancer early, to enhance the screening, and to broaden it to a larger population who may not be amenable to the other techniques.”
Dr. Jung added a caveat that the study population included people at a higher risk for CRC. Therefore, she said, it was a screening study but not a general population, average-risk screening study.
However, she said, “that does not mean that this could not be optimized in the future.”
Ideally, we need tests for every application, including people who are asymptomatic, Dr. Jung said.
Dr. Peinado reports no relevant financial relationships. Some of the study authors are employees of Guardant Health. Dr. Jung reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of a blood test for people being screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) revealed a high sensitivity and specificity.
At 90% specificity, the blood assay (Guardant Health) was 100% sensitive for detecting CRC. At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 88%.
The blood assay detects circulating tumor DNA from cancer in the bloodstream, which is then analyzed for multiple factors, including cancer genetics and methylation.
Lead author Paloma Peinado, MD, a medical oncologist at HM Hospitales, Madrid, and colleagues, called the results similar to those seen with noninvasive, stool-based testing, noting that the “sensitivity and specificity of the blood-based test reached clinically significant thresholds.”
“The reported performance, combined with a more acceptable mode of testing, suggests that this blood-based test may be a viable CRC screening option,” they added.
The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2022, held virtually and in San Diego.
Dr. Peinado and colleagues studied 557 people who agreed to have blood drawn at the time of their colonoscopy. They enrolled participants at four hospitals in Spain.
One-third of participants (33%) who sought CRC screening were at average risk. Of the remainder, 49% were symptomatic, 11% had a positive family history of CRC, 6% had a positive stool-based test result, and 1% presented for colonoscopy for other reasons.
The prospective observational study included people age 45-84 years. The median age of participants was 55 years, and just over half (52%) were women.
The prevalence rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma was 2.6%. Eight patients had stage I cancer, three had stage II cancer, two had stage III cancer, and two had stage IV cancer.
The study was designed to follow patients for 1 year after screening. To date, 14% of participants have reached this point.
Not a general population screening study
“We definitely we need more studies like this,” said Barbara H. Jung, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, when asked to comment on the study.
“We need to find other ways to detect colorectal cancer early, to enhance the screening, and to broaden it to a larger population who may not be amenable to the other techniques.”
Dr. Jung added a caveat that the study population included people at a higher risk for CRC. Therefore, she said, it was a screening study but not a general population, average-risk screening study.
However, she said, “that does not mean that this could not be optimized in the future.”
Ideally, we need tests for every application, including people who are asymptomatic, Dr. Jung said.
Dr. Peinado reports no relevant financial relationships. Some of the study authors are employees of Guardant Health. Dr. Jung reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of a blood test for people being screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) revealed a high sensitivity and specificity.
At 90% specificity, the blood assay (Guardant Health) was 100% sensitive for detecting CRC. At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 88%.
The blood assay detects circulating tumor DNA from cancer in the bloodstream, which is then analyzed for multiple factors, including cancer genetics and methylation.
Lead author Paloma Peinado, MD, a medical oncologist at HM Hospitales, Madrid, and colleagues, called the results similar to those seen with noninvasive, stool-based testing, noting that the “sensitivity and specificity of the blood-based test reached clinically significant thresholds.”
“The reported performance, combined with a more acceptable mode of testing, suggests that this blood-based test may be a viable CRC screening option,” they added.
The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2022, held virtually and in San Diego.
Dr. Peinado and colleagues studied 557 people who agreed to have blood drawn at the time of their colonoscopy. They enrolled participants at four hospitals in Spain.
One-third of participants (33%) who sought CRC screening were at average risk. Of the remainder, 49% were symptomatic, 11% had a positive family history of CRC, 6% had a positive stool-based test result, and 1% presented for colonoscopy for other reasons.
The prospective observational study included people age 45-84 years. The median age of participants was 55 years, and just over half (52%) were women.
The prevalence rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma was 2.6%. Eight patients had stage I cancer, three had stage II cancer, two had stage III cancer, and two had stage IV cancer.
The study was designed to follow patients for 1 year after screening. To date, 14% of participants have reached this point.
Not a general population screening study
“We definitely we need more studies like this,” said Barbara H. Jung, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, when asked to comment on the study.
“We need to find other ways to detect colorectal cancer early, to enhance the screening, and to broaden it to a larger population who may not be amenable to the other techniques.”
Dr. Jung added a caveat that the study population included people at a higher risk for CRC. Therefore, she said, it was a screening study but not a general population, average-risk screening study.
However, she said, “that does not mean that this could not be optimized in the future.”
Ideally, we need tests for every application, including people who are asymptomatic, Dr. Jung said.
Dr. Peinado reports no relevant financial relationships. Some of the study authors are employees of Guardant Health. Dr. Jung reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.