Jaleesa Baulkman

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine early in pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion, new research suggests.

The study, published online in JAMA, evaluated the proportion of women who received the vaccine and had ongoing pregnancies in comparison with those who experienced a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The researchers analyzed data from 105,446 unique pregnancies over seven 4-week surveillance periods between December 2020 and June 2021. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date). Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period on the basis of their outcome date. There were 13,160 spontaneous abortions and 92,286 ongoing pregnancies.

Overall, a COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy surveillance periods versus 8.6% of spontaneous abortions.

“We’re hoping that this data can inform the ongoing conversations between providers and pregnant women [about the COVID-19 vaccines],” study author Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, senior research investigator at HealthPartners Institute, told this news organization. “It should be considered in the context of all the data that’s coming out both on the risks of COVID infection and pregnancy and data on outcomes among women who are vaccinated and pregnant.”

Among the women whose pregnancies were followed, 7.8% received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 6% received at least one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 0.5% received the Janssen vaccine.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommended that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The new findings provide reassuring evidence about the safety of COVID vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, during pregnancy, said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

“The study design was a carefully conducted case-control study. Although ideally the best design for studying vaccine safety and efficacy is a randomized clinical trial, data are rapidly accumulating from a variety of sources that COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy,” said Dr. Jamieson, who serves on several ACOG committees.

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

Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine early in pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion, new research suggests.

The study, published online in JAMA, evaluated the proportion of women who received the vaccine and had ongoing pregnancies in comparison with those who experienced a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The researchers analyzed data from 105,446 unique pregnancies over seven 4-week surveillance periods between December 2020 and June 2021. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date). Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period on the basis of their outcome date. There were 13,160 spontaneous abortions and 92,286 ongoing pregnancies.

Overall, a COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy surveillance periods versus 8.6% of spontaneous abortions.

“We’re hoping that this data can inform the ongoing conversations between providers and pregnant women [about the COVID-19 vaccines],” study author Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, senior research investigator at HealthPartners Institute, told this news organization. “It should be considered in the context of all the data that’s coming out both on the risks of COVID infection and pregnancy and data on outcomes among women who are vaccinated and pregnant.”

Among the women whose pregnancies were followed, 7.8% received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 6% received at least one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 0.5% received the Janssen vaccine.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommended that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The new findings provide reassuring evidence about the safety of COVID vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, during pregnancy, said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

“The study design was a carefully conducted case-control study. Although ideally the best design for studying vaccine safety and efficacy is a randomized clinical trial, data are rapidly accumulating from a variety of sources that COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy,” said Dr. Jamieson, who serves on several ACOG committees.

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

Receiving a COVID-19 vaccine early in pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion, new research suggests.

The study, published online in JAMA, evaluated the proportion of women who received the vaccine and had ongoing pregnancies in comparison with those who experienced a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. The researchers analyzed data from 105,446 unique pregnancies over seven 4-week surveillance periods between December 2020 and June 2021. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date). Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period on the basis of their outcome date. There were 13,160 spontaneous abortions and 92,286 ongoing pregnancies.

Overall, a COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy surveillance periods versus 8.6% of spontaneous abortions.

“We’re hoping that this data can inform the ongoing conversations between providers and pregnant women [about the COVID-19 vaccines],” study author Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, senior research investigator at HealthPartners Institute, told this news organization. “It should be considered in the context of all the data that’s coming out both on the risks of COVID infection and pregnancy and data on outcomes among women who are vaccinated and pregnant.”

Among the women whose pregnancies were followed, 7.8% received at least one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, 6% received at least one dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and 0.5% received the Janssen vaccine.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommended that all pregnant women be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The new findings provide reassuring evidence about the safety of COVID vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, during pregnancy, said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, chair of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

“The study design was a carefully conducted case-control study. Although ideally the best design for studying vaccine safety and efficacy is a randomized clinical trial, data are rapidly accumulating from a variety of sources that COVID vaccines are safe in pregnancy,” said Dr. Jamieson, who serves on several ACOG committees.

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

Many pregnant patients are not being screened for iron deficiency despite it being a common cause of anemia in pregnancy that could increase the risk of maternal and infant death.

Researchers analyzed data from 44,552 pregnant patients in Ontario, Canada, collected between 2013 and 2018 to determine the prevalence of ferritin testing, the standard test for iron deficiency, over the course of 5 years.

Their study, published in Blood Advances, revealed that only 59.4% of pregnant persons received a ferritin test, the standard test for iron deficiency. Of those pregnant persons, 25.2% were iron insufficient and 52.8% were iron deficient at least once during pregnancy.

They also found that 71% of these iron tests were ordered during the first trimester, when the risk of iron deficiency is lowest.

“We are not only missing a very large proportion of women who are iron deficient going into pregnancy, but we’re missing those that become iron deficient later on in their pregnancies,” study author Dr. Jennifer Teichman, hematology resident at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. Researchers said iron deficiency during pregnancy is associated with maternal fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, depression, low birth weight, and poor brain development of the child.

Dr. Teichman explained that if iron deficiency during pregnancy is identified early enough, doctors would have enough time to treat the condition with iron supplements before the patient goes into delivery. She also explained prenatal vitamins, which contain some iron, do not contain enough of the mineral to fix iron deficiency.

“One really important point is that the amount of iron contained in a prenatal vitamin is really low,” Dr. Teichman explained. “It’s enough to make up the difference of the additional iron that she needs to sustain her pregnancy, but it’s not enough to treat a woman who’s already got low iron going into pregnancy. So there’s a difference between a prenatal vitamin and true iron supplementation.”

Researchers also found that those who came from a household with a low annual income were even less likely to receive a ferritin test, which was a troubling finding since women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be iron deficient in pregnancy. 

“[This] says something about how we as health care providers are contributing to this gap in care,” Dr. Teichman said. “Women of lower socioeconomic status sort of have a triple whammy: They’re more likely to be iron deficient, they’re less likely to have it diagnosed, and they’re less likely to have it corrected.”

Dr. Teichman and her colleagues took a unique approach by looking at isolated ferritin levels as opposed to complete blood counts, which is the typical screening for anemia in pregnancy, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study.

“Those who meet the criteria for anemia should be evaluated for the cause with initial suspicion for iron deficiency anemia, as that is the most common etiology,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons, in addition to universal iron supplementation to meet the iron requirements of pregnancy.  

Additionally, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant persons be screened for anemia with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

However, iron deficiency is completely missed by ACOG’s recommendations, said Michael Auerbach, MD, of the department of medicine, Georgetown University, Washington. 

“They recommend a [complete blood count] on all presenting pregnant women, but they do not recommend iron parameters, including a ferritin test, unless the mother is anemic,” said Dr. Auerbach, who was not involved in the study. “I think those guidelines are in need of revision.”

Dr. Teichman hopes her team’s findings will motivate change in obstetric and hematologic guidelines that recommend routine prenatal testing.

“I think ferritin should be a part of routine prenatal testing,” Dr. Teichman said. “And I also think that patients need to be empowered to ask what their iron levels are in pregnancy and providers need to know what a normal iron level is.”

None of the experts interviewed for this story had financial conflicts of interest.

Many pregnant patients are not being screened for iron deficiency despite it being a common cause of anemia in pregnancy that could increase the risk of maternal and infant death.

Researchers analyzed data from 44,552 pregnant patients in Ontario, Canada, collected between 2013 and 2018 to determine the prevalence of ferritin testing, the standard test for iron deficiency, over the course of 5 years.

Their study, published in Blood Advances, revealed that only 59.4% of pregnant persons received a ferritin test, the standard test for iron deficiency. Of those pregnant persons, 25.2% were iron insufficient and 52.8% were iron deficient at least once during pregnancy.

They also found that 71% of these iron tests were ordered during the first trimester, when the risk of iron deficiency is lowest.

“We are not only missing a very large proportion of women who are iron deficient going into pregnancy, but we’re missing those that become iron deficient later on in their pregnancies,” study author Dr. Jennifer Teichman, hematology resident at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. Researchers said iron deficiency during pregnancy is associated with maternal fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, depression, low birth weight, and poor brain development of the child.

Dr. Teichman explained that if iron deficiency during pregnancy is identified early enough, doctors would have enough time to treat the condition with iron supplements before the patient goes into delivery. She also explained prenatal vitamins, which contain some iron, do not contain enough of the mineral to fix iron deficiency.

“One really important point is that the amount of iron contained in a prenatal vitamin is really low,” Dr. Teichman explained. “It’s enough to make up the difference of the additional iron that she needs to sustain her pregnancy, but it’s not enough to treat a woman who’s already got low iron going into pregnancy. So there’s a difference between a prenatal vitamin and true iron supplementation.”

Researchers also found that those who came from a household with a low annual income were even less likely to receive a ferritin test, which was a troubling finding since women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be iron deficient in pregnancy. 

“[This] says something about how we as health care providers are contributing to this gap in care,” Dr. Teichman said. “Women of lower socioeconomic status sort of have a triple whammy: They’re more likely to be iron deficient, they’re less likely to have it diagnosed, and they’re less likely to have it corrected.”

Dr. Teichman and her colleagues took a unique approach by looking at isolated ferritin levels as opposed to complete blood counts, which is the typical screening for anemia in pregnancy, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study.

“Those who meet the criteria for anemia should be evaluated for the cause with initial suspicion for iron deficiency anemia, as that is the most common etiology,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons, in addition to universal iron supplementation to meet the iron requirements of pregnancy.  

Additionally, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant persons be screened for anemia with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

However, iron deficiency is completely missed by ACOG’s recommendations, said Michael Auerbach, MD, of the department of medicine, Georgetown University, Washington. 

“They recommend a [complete blood count] on all presenting pregnant women, but they do not recommend iron parameters, including a ferritin test, unless the mother is anemic,” said Dr. Auerbach, who was not involved in the study. “I think those guidelines are in need of revision.”

Dr. Teichman hopes her team’s findings will motivate change in obstetric and hematologic guidelines that recommend routine prenatal testing.

“I think ferritin should be a part of routine prenatal testing,” Dr. Teichman said. “And I also think that patients need to be empowered to ask what their iron levels are in pregnancy and providers need to know what a normal iron level is.”

None of the experts interviewed for this story had financial conflicts of interest.

Many pregnant patients are not being screened for iron deficiency despite it being a common cause of anemia in pregnancy that could increase the risk of maternal and infant death.

Researchers analyzed data from 44,552 pregnant patients in Ontario, Canada, collected between 2013 and 2018 to determine the prevalence of ferritin testing, the standard test for iron deficiency, over the course of 5 years.

Their study, published in Blood Advances, revealed that only 59.4% of pregnant persons received a ferritin test, the standard test for iron deficiency. Of those pregnant persons, 25.2% were iron insufficient and 52.8% were iron deficient at least once during pregnancy.

They also found that 71% of these iron tests were ordered during the first trimester, when the risk of iron deficiency is lowest.

“We are not only missing a very large proportion of women who are iron deficient going into pregnancy, but we’re missing those that become iron deficient later on in their pregnancies,” study author Dr. Jennifer Teichman, hematology resident at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. Researchers said iron deficiency during pregnancy is associated with maternal fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, depression, low birth weight, and poor brain development of the child.

Dr. Teichman explained that if iron deficiency during pregnancy is identified early enough, doctors would have enough time to treat the condition with iron supplements before the patient goes into delivery. She also explained prenatal vitamins, which contain some iron, do not contain enough of the mineral to fix iron deficiency.

“One really important point is that the amount of iron contained in a prenatal vitamin is really low,” Dr. Teichman explained. “It’s enough to make up the difference of the additional iron that she needs to sustain her pregnancy, but it’s not enough to treat a woman who’s already got low iron going into pregnancy. So there’s a difference between a prenatal vitamin and true iron supplementation.”

Researchers also found that those who came from a household with a low annual income were even less likely to receive a ferritin test, which was a troubling finding since women of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be iron deficient in pregnancy. 

“[This] says something about how we as health care providers are contributing to this gap in care,” Dr. Teichman said. “Women of lower socioeconomic status sort of have a triple whammy: They’re more likely to be iron deficient, they’re less likely to have it diagnosed, and they’re less likely to have it corrected.”

Dr. Teichman and her colleagues took a unique approach by looking at isolated ferritin levels as opposed to complete blood counts, which is the typical screening for anemia in pregnancy, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved with the study.

“Those who meet the criteria for anemia should be evaluated for the cause with initial suspicion for iron deficiency anemia, as that is the most common etiology,” said Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons, in addition to universal iron supplementation to meet the iron requirements of pregnancy.  

Additionally, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all pregnant persons be screened for anemia with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

However, iron deficiency is completely missed by ACOG’s recommendations, said Michael Auerbach, MD, of the department of medicine, Georgetown University, Washington. 

“They recommend a [complete blood count] on all presenting pregnant women, but they do not recommend iron parameters, including a ferritin test, unless the mother is anemic,” said Dr. Auerbach, who was not involved in the study. “I think those guidelines are in need of revision.”

Dr. Teichman hopes her team’s findings will motivate change in obstetric and hematologic guidelines that recommend routine prenatal testing.

“I think ferritin should be a part of routine prenatal testing,” Dr. Teichman said. “And I also think that patients need to be empowered to ask what their iron levels are in pregnancy and providers need to know what a normal iron level is.”

None of the experts interviewed for this story had financial conflicts of interest.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Telehealth abortion may be just as safe and effective as in-person care, according to a small study published online in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 110 women from whom researchers collected remote abortion outcome data, 95% had a complete abortion without additional medical interventions, such as aspiration or surgery, and none experienced adverse events. Researchers said this efficacy rate is similar to in-person visits.

“There was no reason to expect that the medications prescribed [via telemedicine] and delivered through the mail would have different outcomes from when a patient traveled to a clinic,” study author Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Medication abortion, which usually involves taking mifepristone (Mifeprex) followed by misoprostol (Cytotec) during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been available in the United States since 2000. The Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy requires that mifepristone be dispensed in a medical office, clinic, or hospital, prohibiting dispensing from pharmacies in an effort to reduce potential risk for complications.

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Upadhyay hopes the findings of her current study will make this suspension permanent.

For the study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues examined the safety and efficacy of fully remote, medication abortion care. Eligibility for the medication was assessed using an online form that relies on patient history, or patients recalling their last period, to assess pregnancy duration and screen for ectopic pregnancy risks. Nurse practitioners reviewed the form and referred patients with unknown last menstrual period date or ectopic pregnancy risk factors for ultrasonography. A mail-order pharmacy delivered medications to eligible patients. The protocol involved three follow-up contacts: confirmation of medication administration, a 3-day assessment of symptoms, and a home pregnancy test after 4 weeks. Follow-up interactions were conducted by text, secure messaging, or telephone.

Researchers found that in addition to the 95% of the patients having a complete abortion without intervention, 5% (five) of patients required addition medical care to complete the abortion. Two of those patients were treated in EDs.

Gillian Burkhardt, MD, who was not involved in the study, said Dr. Upadhyay’s study proves what has been known all along, that medication is super safe and that women “can help to determine their own eligibility as well as in conjunction with the provider.”

“I hope that this will be one more study that the FDA can use when thinking about changing the risk evaluation administration strategy so that it’s removing the requirement that a person be in the dispensing medical office,” Dr. Burkhardt, assistant professor of family planning in the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “I hope it also makes providers feel more comfortable as well, because I think there’s some hesitancy among providers to provide abortion without doing an ultrasound or without seeing the patient typically in front of them.”

This isn’t the first study to suggest the safety of telemedicine abortion. A 2019 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which analyzed records from nearly 6,000 patients receiving medication abortion either through telemedicine or in person at 26 Planned Parenthood health centers in four states found that ongoing pregnancy and aspiration procedures were less common among telemedicine patients. Another 2017 study published in BMJ found that women who used an online consultation service and self-sourced medical abortion during a 3-year period were able to successfully end their pregnancies with few adverse events.

Dr. Upadhyay said one limitation of the current study is its sample size, so more studies should be conducted to prove telemedicine abortion’s safety.

“I think that we need continued research on this model of care just so we have more multiple studies that contribute to the evidence that can convince providers as well that they don’t need a lot of tests and that they can mail,” Dr. Upadhyay said.

Neither Dr. Upadhyay nor Dr. Burkhardt reported conflicts of interests.

Many families delayed much-needed health care for their children out of fears that they may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, according to data from the Urban Institute April 2021 Health Reform Monitoring Survey.

Data from 9,067 adults aged 18 to 64 years indicate that nearly 1 in 5 parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“It’s not surprising given the timing of the survey – April 2021 – when many people couldn’t get a vaccine yet and were reporting delayed care because of concerns about exposure during the past 30 days,” study author Dulce Gonzalez, BA, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

In a previous survey that the Urban Institute conducted in September 2020, 28.8% of parents reported delaying or forgoing one or more types of health care for their children because of virus concerns or health care practitioner service limits.

These concerns still affect parents’ decision making when it comes to their child’s health. Nearly 1 in 10 parents reported that they had skipped doctor’s appointments for their children in the past 30 days. More than 1 in 10 adults forwent their own health care in the past month for the same reason.

“I think it’s important for parents to understand that health care workers and health care facilities are equipped to prevent infections from spreading,” Mundeep Kainth, DO, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “COVID-19 is not the first infection that we’ve seen in the medical setting, and we definitely are well aware of how it can spread and have been taking many precautions.”

The most common type of delayed or forgone care was dental care (5.3%), followed by well-child visits (4.0%) and general or specialist visits (3.2%). About 3% of parents said their child had missed out on immunizations. Nearly 6% of parents said their child had missed out on multiple types of care.

One reason dental care is the most commonly skipped type of care is because people might not consider dental care to be as urgent as other types of care, Ms. Gonzalez said. However, oral health can affect a person’s overall wellness.

Dr. Kainth, an infection disease specialist at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, said the lack of immunization because of COVID-19 can have adverse health effects on children and could possibly lead to outbreaks in schools and day care settings. In the Urban Institute’s 2020 survey, 18.5% of parents said putting off their child’s health care worsened their child’s health, and 15.6% said it limited their children’s ability to go to school or day care.

“We are already concerned that we will have pockets of [vaccine-preventable] infections that we normally did not see before in communities where they are not vaccinating their children at high enough numbers,” Dr. Kainth said. “It is a little concerning that there’s probably a lot of catch up to be done for particular vaccines that are specifically for those entering day care and school.”

The current survey also found that parents with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level were more likely than those with higher incomes to have put off care for their children in the past 30 days. More than 12% of families living in poverty put off care for their children, compared with 6.5% of those with higher incomes. They were also more likely to delay or forgo multiple types of care, at 8.1% versus 3.3%. Parents with lower family incomes were also more likely to report that their children had unmet needs for dental care, checkups, or other preventive care.

“We know that lower-income parents could be more exposed to costs they might not be able to afford if they were to get sick,” Ms. Gonzalez said. “Low-income adults have been disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic. They are also more likely to live in communities that have faced the largest health impacts of COVID-19.”

“There’s also advantages to the pediatrician visit that are not just about providing care but also providing guidance and advice to families and parents who are maybe struggling with certain issues that are above and beyond just the medical advice,” Dr. Kainth explained.

“That is probably the most tragic part of hearing that parents and kids are not going to the well visits, because that’s where families get a lot of support. And I think at this time, we probably need that more than ever,” she continued.

The authors said the findings highlight the importance of increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccinations among eligible adolescents and encouraging vaccinations for children younger than 12 when they become eligible, not only to protect them from COVID-19 but also to help families feel comfortable obtaining care.

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors and Dr. Kainth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many families delayed much-needed health care for their children out of fears that they may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, according to data from the Urban Institute April 2021 Health Reform Monitoring Survey.

Data from 9,067 adults aged 18 to 64 years indicate that nearly 1 in 5 parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“It’s not surprising given the timing of the survey – April 2021 – when many people couldn’t get a vaccine yet and were reporting delayed care because of concerns about exposure during the past 30 days,” study author Dulce Gonzalez, BA, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

In a previous survey that the Urban Institute conducted in September 2020, 28.8% of parents reported delaying or forgoing one or more types of health care for their children because of virus concerns or health care practitioner service limits.

These concerns still affect parents’ decision making when it comes to their child’s health. Nearly 1 in 10 parents reported that they had skipped doctor’s appointments for their children in the past 30 days. More than 1 in 10 adults forwent their own health care in the past month for the same reason.

“I think it’s important for parents to understand that health care workers and health care facilities are equipped to prevent infections from spreading,” Mundeep Kainth, DO, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “COVID-19 is not the first infection that we’ve seen in the medical setting, and we definitely are well aware of how it can spread and have been taking many precautions.”

The most common type of delayed or forgone care was dental care (5.3%), followed by well-child visits (4.0%) and general or specialist visits (3.2%). About 3% of parents said their child had missed out on immunizations. Nearly 6% of parents said their child had missed out on multiple types of care.

One reason dental care is the most commonly skipped type of care is because people might not consider dental care to be as urgent as other types of care, Ms. Gonzalez said. However, oral health can affect a person’s overall wellness.

Dr. Kainth, an infection disease specialist at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, said the lack of immunization because of COVID-19 can have adverse health effects on children and could possibly lead to outbreaks in schools and day care settings. In the Urban Institute’s 2020 survey, 18.5% of parents said putting off their child’s health care worsened their child’s health, and 15.6% said it limited their children’s ability to go to school or day care.

“We are already concerned that we will have pockets of [vaccine-preventable] infections that we normally did not see before in communities where they are not vaccinating their children at high enough numbers,” Dr. Kainth said. “It is a little concerning that there’s probably a lot of catch up to be done for particular vaccines that are specifically for those entering day care and school.”

The current survey also found that parents with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level were more likely than those with higher incomes to have put off care for their children in the past 30 days. More than 12% of families living in poverty put off care for their children, compared with 6.5% of those with higher incomes. They were also more likely to delay or forgo multiple types of care, at 8.1% versus 3.3%. Parents with lower family incomes were also more likely to report that their children had unmet needs for dental care, checkups, or other preventive care.

“We know that lower-income parents could be more exposed to costs they might not be able to afford if they were to get sick,” Ms. Gonzalez said. “Low-income adults have been disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic. They are also more likely to live in communities that have faced the largest health impacts of COVID-19.”

“There’s also advantages to the pediatrician visit that are not just about providing care but also providing guidance and advice to families and parents who are maybe struggling with certain issues that are above and beyond just the medical advice,” Dr. Kainth explained.

“That is probably the most tragic part of hearing that parents and kids are not going to the well visits, because that’s where families get a lot of support. And I think at this time, we probably need that more than ever,” she continued.

The authors said the findings highlight the importance of increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccinations among eligible adolescents and encouraging vaccinations for children younger than 12 when they become eligible, not only to protect them from COVID-19 but also to help families feel comfortable obtaining care.

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors and Dr. Kainth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many families delayed much-needed health care for their children out of fears that they may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, according to data from the Urban Institute April 2021 Health Reform Monitoring Survey.

Data from 9,067 adults aged 18 to 64 years indicate that nearly 1 in 5 parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“It’s not surprising given the timing of the survey – April 2021 – when many people couldn’t get a vaccine yet and were reporting delayed care because of concerns about exposure during the past 30 days,” study author Dulce Gonzalez, BA, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

In a previous survey that the Urban Institute conducted in September 2020, 28.8% of parents reported delaying or forgoing one or more types of health care for their children because of virus concerns or health care practitioner service limits.

These concerns still affect parents’ decision making when it comes to their child’s health. Nearly 1 in 10 parents reported that they had skipped doctor’s appointments for their children in the past 30 days. More than 1 in 10 adults forwent their own health care in the past month for the same reason.

“I think it’s important for parents to understand that health care workers and health care facilities are equipped to prevent infections from spreading,” Mundeep Kainth, DO, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “COVID-19 is not the first infection that we’ve seen in the medical setting, and we definitely are well aware of how it can spread and have been taking many precautions.”

The most common type of delayed or forgone care was dental care (5.3%), followed by well-child visits (4.0%) and general or specialist visits (3.2%). About 3% of parents said their child had missed out on immunizations. Nearly 6% of parents said their child had missed out on multiple types of care.

One reason dental care is the most commonly skipped type of care is because people might not consider dental care to be as urgent as other types of care, Ms. Gonzalez said. However, oral health can affect a person’s overall wellness.

Dr. Kainth, an infection disease specialist at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, said the lack of immunization because of COVID-19 can have adverse health effects on children and could possibly lead to outbreaks in schools and day care settings. In the Urban Institute’s 2020 survey, 18.5% of parents said putting off their child’s health care worsened their child’s health, and 15.6% said it limited their children’s ability to go to school or day care.

“We are already concerned that we will have pockets of [vaccine-preventable] infections that we normally did not see before in communities where they are not vaccinating their children at high enough numbers,” Dr. Kainth said. “It is a little concerning that there’s probably a lot of catch up to be done for particular vaccines that are specifically for those entering day care and school.”

The current survey also found that parents with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level were more likely than those with higher incomes to have put off care for their children in the past 30 days. More than 12% of families living in poverty put off care for their children, compared with 6.5% of those with higher incomes. They were also more likely to delay or forgo multiple types of care, at 8.1% versus 3.3%. Parents with lower family incomes were also more likely to report that their children had unmet needs for dental care, checkups, or other preventive care.

“We know that lower-income parents could be more exposed to costs they might not be able to afford if they were to get sick,” Ms. Gonzalez said. “Low-income adults have been disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic. They are also more likely to live in communities that have faced the largest health impacts of COVID-19.”

“There’s also advantages to the pediatrician visit that are not just about providing care but also providing guidance and advice to families and parents who are maybe struggling with certain issues that are above and beyond just the medical advice,” Dr. Kainth explained.

“That is probably the most tragic part of hearing that parents and kids are not going to the well visits, because that’s where families get a lot of support. And I think at this time, we probably need that more than ever,” she continued.

The authors said the findings highlight the importance of increasing rates of COVID-19 vaccinations among eligible adolescents and encouraging vaccinations for children younger than 12 when they become eligible, not only to protect them from COVID-19 but also to help families feel comfortable obtaining care.

The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The authors and Dr. Kainth have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Preterm and early birth is associated with an increased risk of autism independent of genetic or environmental factors, according to new research published in Pediatrics.

Although previous studies have linked preterm births to an increased risk of autism – one 2017 study published in Cerebral Cortex found that 27.4% of the children born extremely preterm were diagnosed with autism – Casey Crump, MD, PhD, said potential causality, sex-specific differences, and association with early-term births were still unclear.

“Preterm birth had previously been linked with higher risk of autism; however, several important questions remained unanswered,” said Dr. Crump, professor and vice chair for research at the department of family medicine and community health and professor of epidemiology in the department of population health science and policy at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York. “To our knowledge, [our study] is the largest to date of gestational age at birth in relation to autism, and one of the first to investigate sex-specific differences, early term birth, or the influence of shared familial factors.”

Dr. Crump and colleagues examined data from more than 4 million infants born in Sweden between 1973 and 2013 who were followed-up for autism spectrum disorder identified from nationwide outpatient and inpatient diagnoses through December 2015. Children born between 22 and 27 weeks were considered extremely preterm, those born between 28 and 33 week were characterized as very to moderate preterm, and those born between 34 and 36 weeks were considered late preterm. Early-term births are characterized as infants born between 37 and 38 weeks and children born between 39 and 41 weeks were considered term births.

They found that 6.1% of those born extremely preterm were diagnosed with autism. Meanwhile, autism spectrum disorder prevalences were 2.6% for very to moderate preterm, 1.9% for late preterm, 2.1% for all preterm, and 1.6% for early term, compared with 1.4% for term birth.

The researchers’ analysis showed that preterm and early birth were associated with a significantly increased risk of autism in males and females. Children who were born extremely preterm had an approximately fourfold increased risk of autism. Researchers also found that each additional week of gestation was associated with a 5% lower prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on average.

“The elevated risk even in [late preterm] infants is not completely surprising because a number of investigators have shown higher incidences of early cognitive, language motor and impairment, and school problems ... and psychiatric disorders, some of which may extend to adulthood,” Elisabeth McGowan, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in a solicited editorial commentary about the study.

Dr. Crump believes the association between preterm birth and autism may be because of increased inflammatory marker levels. A 2009 study published in Reproductive Sciences found that increased proinflammatory cytokine levels have been associated with the timing and initiation of preterm birth, and also have been detected in the brain and cerebrospinal fluid of individuals with autism “and may play a key role in its pathogenesis,” Dr. Crump said.

“Inflammatory-driven alteration of neuronal connections during critical periods of brain development may be central to the development of autism,” Dr. Crump explained.

However, Dr. Crump said that, although the relative risks of autism were higher in those born preterm, the absolute risk of the condition is low.

“The report by Crump is in many ways a definitive accounting of the elevated rates of ASD in preterm infants,” said Dr. McGowan, associate professor of pediatrics at the Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, R.I. “And although the impact of prematurity on brain development may be part of the causal chain resulting in ASD (or other neurodevelopmental outcomes), these factors are operating in a complex biological landscape, with pathways to ASD outcomes that can be expected to be heterogeneous.”

ASD is a developmental condition that affects about 1 in 54 children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many children are not diagnosed with ASD until later in childhood, which in some cases delays treatment and early intervention. ASD may be detected as early as 18 months, but the average age of diagnosis for ASD is 4.3 years, according to the CDC.

“Children born prematurely need early evaluation and long-term follow-up to facilitate timely detection and treatment of autism, especially those born at the earliest gestational ages,” Dr. Crump said in an interview. “In patients of all ages, gestational age at birth should be routinely included in history-taking and medical records to help identify in clinical practice those born preterm or early term. Such information can provide additional valuable context for understanding patients’ health and may facilitate earlier evaluation for autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions in those born prematurely.”

Dr. Crump and colleagues said more research is needed to understand the biologic mechanisms linking preterm birth with higher risks of autism, which “may reveal new targets for intervention at critical windows of neurodevelopment to improve the disease trajectory.”

Experts interviewed did not disclose any relevant financial relationships.

Preterm and early birth is associated with an increased risk of autism independent of genetic or environmental factors, according to new research published in Pediatrics.

Although previous studies have linked preterm births to an increased risk of autism – one 2017 study published in Cerebral Cortex found that 27.4% of the children born extremely preterm were diagnosed with autism – Casey Crump, MD, PhD, said potential causality, sex-specific differences, and association with early-term births were still unclear.

“Preterm birth had previously been linked with higher risk of autism; however, several important questions remained unanswered,” said Dr. Crump, professor and vice chair for research at the department of family medicine and community health and professor of epidemiology in the department of population health science and policy at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York. “To our knowledge, [our study] is the largest to date of gestational age at birth in relation to autism, and one of the first to investigate sex-specific differences, early term birth, or the influence of shared familial factors.”

Dr. Crump and colleagues examined data from more than 4 million infants born in Sweden between 1973 and 2013 who were followed-up for autism spectrum disorder identified from nationwide outpatient and inpatient diagnoses through December 2015. Children born between 22 and 27 weeks were considered extremely preterm, those born between 28 and 33 week were characterized as very to moderate preterm, and those born between 34 and 36 weeks were considered late preterm. Early-term births are characterized as infants born between 37 and 38 weeks and children born between 39 and 41 weeks were considered term births.

They found that 6.1% of those born extremely preterm were diagnosed with autism. Meanwhile, autism spectrum disorder prevalences were 2.6% for very to moderate preterm, 1.9% for late preterm, 2.1% for all preterm, and 1.6% for early term, compared with 1.4% for term birth.

The researchers’ analysis showed that preterm and early birth were associated with a significantly increased risk of autism in males and females. Children who were born extremely preterm had an approximately fourfold increased risk of autism. Researchers also found that each additional week of gestation was associated with a 5% lower prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on average.

“The elevated risk even in [late preterm] infants is not completely surprising because a number of investigators have shown higher incidences of early cognitive, language motor and impairment, and school problems ... and psychiatric disorders, some of which may extend to adulthood,” Elisabeth McGowan, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in a solicited editorial commentary about the study.

Dr. Crump believes the association between preterm birth and autism may be because of increased inflammatory marker levels. A 2009 study published in Reproductive Sciences found that increased proinflammatory cytokine levels have been associated with the timing and initiation of preterm birth, and also have been detected in the brain and cerebrospinal fluid of individuals with autism “and may play a key role in its pathogenesis,” Dr. Crump said.

“Inflammatory-driven alteration of neuronal connections during critical periods of brain development may be central to the development of autism,” Dr. Crump explained.

However, Dr. Crump said that, although the relative risks of autism were higher in those born preterm, the absolute risk of the condition is low.

“The report by Crump is in many ways a definitive accounting of the elevated rates of ASD in preterm infants,” said Dr. McGowan, associate professor of pediatrics at the Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, R.I. “And although the impact of prematurity on brain development may be part of the causal chain resulting in ASD (or other neurodevelopmental outcomes), these factors are operating in a complex biological landscape, with pathways to ASD outcomes that can be expected to be heterogeneous.”

ASD is a developmental condition that affects about 1 in 54 children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many children are not diagnosed with ASD until later in childhood, which in some cases delays treatment and early intervention. ASD may be detected as early as 18 months, but the average age of diagnosis for ASD is 4.3 years, according to the CDC.

“Children born prematurely need early evaluation and long-term follow-up to facilitate timely detection and treatment of autism, especially those born at the earliest gestational ages,” Dr. Crump said in an interview. “In patients of all ages, gestational age at birth should be routinely included in history-taking and medical records to help identify in clinical practice those born preterm or early term. Such information can provide additional valuable context for understanding patients’ health and may facilitate earlier evaluation for autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions in those born prematurely.”

Dr. Crump and colleagues said more research is needed to understand the biologic mechanisms linking preterm birth with higher risks of autism, which “may reveal new targets for intervention at critical windows of neurodevelopment to improve the disease trajectory.”

Experts interviewed did not disclose any relevant financial relationships.

Preterm and early birth is associated with an increased risk of autism independent of genetic or environmental factors, according to new research published in Pediatrics.

Although previous studies have linked preterm births to an increased risk of autism – one 2017 study published in Cerebral Cortex found that 27.4% of the children born extremely preterm were diagnosed with autism – Casey Crump, MD, PhD, said potential causality, sex-specific differences, and association with early-term births were still unclear.

“Preterm birth had previously been linked with higher risk of autism; however, several important questions remained unanswered,” said Dr. Crump, professor and vice chair for research at the department of family medicine and community health and professor of epidemiology in the department of population health science and policy at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York. “To our knowledge, [our study] is the largest to date of gestational age at birth in relation to autism, and one of the first to investigate sex-specific differences, early term birth, or the influence of shared familial factors.”

Dr. Crump and colleagues examined data from more than 4 million infants born in Sweden between 1973 and 2013 who were followed-up for autism spectrum disorder identified from nationwide outpatient and inpatient diagnoses through December 2015. Children born between 22 and 27 weeks were considered extremely preterm, those born between 28 and 33 week were characterized as very to moderate preterm, and those born between 34 and 36 weeks were considered late preterm. Early-term births are characterized as infants born between 37 and 38 weeks and children born between 39 and 41 weeks were considered term births.

They found that 6.1% of those born extremely preterm were diagnosed with autism. Meanwhile, autism spectrum disorder prevalences were 2.6% for very to moderate preterm, 1.9% for late preterm, 2.1% for all preterm, and 1.6% for early term, compared with 1.4% for term birth.

The researchers’ analysis showed that preterm and early birth were associated with a significantly increased risk of autism in males and females. Children who were born extremely preterm had an approximately fourfold increased risk of autism. Researchers also found that each additional week of gestation was associated with a 5% lower prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on average.

“The elevated risk even in [late preterm] infants is not completely surprising because a number of investigators have shown higher incidences of early cognitive, language motor and impairment, and school problems ... and psychiatric disorders, some of which may extend to adulthood,” Elisabeth McGowan, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in a solicited editorial commentary about the study.

Dr. Crump believes the association between preterm birth and autism may be because of increased inflammatory marker levels. A 2009 study published in Reproductive Sciences found that increased proinflammatory cytokine levels have been associated with the timing and initiation of preterm birth, and also have been detected in the brain and cerebrospinal fluid of individuals with autism “and may play a key role in its pathogenesis,” Dr. Crump said.

“Inflammatory-driven alteration of neuronal connections during critical periods of brain development may be central to the development of autism,” Dr. Crump explained.

However, Dr. Crump said that, although the relative risks of autism were higher in those born preterm, the absolute risk of the condition is low.

“The report by Crump is in many ways a definitive accounting of the elevated rates of ASD in preterm infants,” said Dr. McGowan, associate professor of pediatrics at the Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, R.I. “And although the impact of prematurity on brain development may be part of the causal chain resulting in ASD (or other neurodevelopmental outcomes), these factors are operating in a complex biological landscape, with pathways to ASD outcomes that can be expected to be heterogeneous.”

ASD is a developmental condition that affects about 1 in 54 children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many children are not diagnosed with ASD until later in childhood, which in some cases delays treatment and early intervention. ASD may be detected as early as 18 months, but the average age of diagnosis for ASD is 4.3 years, according to the CDC.

“Children born prematurely need early evaluation and long-term follow-up to facilitate timely detection and treatment of autism, especially those born at the earliest gestational ages,” Dr. Crump said in an interview. “In patients of all ages, gestational age at birth should be routinely included in history-taking and medical records to help identify in clinical practice those born preterm or early term. Such information can provide additional valuable context for understanding patients’ health and may facilitate earlier evaluation for autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions in those born prematurely.”

Dr. Crump and colleagues said more research is needed to understand the biologic mechanisms linking preterm birth with higher risks of autism, which “may reveal new targets for intervention at critical windows of neurodevelopment to improve the disease trajectory.”

Experts interviewed did not disclose any relevant financial relationships.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

People who are seen after a patient with an influenzalike illness are 31.8% more likely to return to a their doctor’s office within 2 weeks with similar symptoms, new research shows.

Prior research has examined the issue of hospital-acquired infections. A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found that 4% of hospitalized patients acquired a health care–associated infection during their stay. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that, on any given day, one in 31 hospital patients has at least one health care–associated infection. However, researchers for the new study, published in Health Affairs, said evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings is limited.

“Hospital-acquired infections has been a problem for a while,” study author Hannah Neprash, PhD, of the department of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, said in an interview. “However, there’s never been a similar study of whether a similar phenomenon happens in physician offices. This is especially relevant now when we’re dealing with respiratory infections.”

Methods and results

For the new study, Dr. Neprash and her colleagues analyzed deidentified billing and scheduling data from 2016-2017 for 105,462,600 outpatient visits that occurred at 6,709 office-based primary care practices. They used the World Health Organization case definition for influenzalike illness “to capture cases in which the physician may suspect this illness even if a specific diagnosis code was not present.” Their control conditions included exposure to urinary tract infections and back pain.

Doctor visits were considered unexposed if they were scheduled to start at least 90 minutes before the first influenzalike illness visit of the day. They were considered exposed if they were scheduled to start at the same time or after the first influenzalike illness visit of the day at that practice.

Researchers quantified whether exposed patients were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next 2 weeks, compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day

They found that 2.7 patients per 1,000 returned within 2 weeks with an influenzalike illness.

Patients were more likely to return with influenzalike illness if their visit occurred after an influenzalike illness visit versus before, the researchers said.

The authors of the paper said their new research highlights the importance of infection control in health care settings, including outpatient offices.

Where did the exposure occur?

Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said he was not surprised by the findings, but noted that it’s hard to say if the exposure to influenzalike illnesses happened in the office or in the community.

“If you start to see individuals with influenza in your office it’s because [there’s influenza] in the community,” Dr. Hijano explained. “So that means that you will have more patients coming in with influenza.”

To reduce the transmission of infections, Dr. Neprash suggested that doctors’ offices follow the CDC guidelines for indoor conduct, which include masking, washing hands, and “taking appropriate infection control measures.”

So potentially masking within offices is a way to minimize transmission between whatever people are there to be seen when it’s contagious, Dr. Neprash said.

“Telehealth really took off in 2020 and it’s unclear what the state of telehealth will be going forward. [These findings] suggest that there’s a patient safety argument for continuing to enable primary care physicians to provide visits either by phone or by video,” he added.

Dr. Hijano thinks it would be helpful for doctors to separate patients with respiratory illnesses from those without respiratory illnesses.

Driver of transmissions

Dr. Neprash suggested that another driver of these transmissions could be doctors not washing their hands, which is a “notorious issue,” and Dr. Hijano agreed with that statement.

“We did know that the hands of physicians and nurses and care providers are the main driver of infections in the health care setting,” Dr. Hijano explained. “I mean, washing your hands properly between encounters is the single best way that any given health care provider can prevent the spread of infections.”

“We have a unique opportunity with COVID-19 to change how these clinics are operating now,” Dr. Hijano said. “Many clinics are actually asking patients to call ahead of time if you have symptoms of a respiratory illness that could be contagious, and those who are not are still mandating the use of mask and physical distance in the waiting areas and limiting the amount of number of patients in any given hour. So I think that those are really big practices that would kind of make an impact in respiratory illness in terms of decreasing transmission in clinics.”

The authors, who had no conflicts of interest said their hope is that their study will help inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings. Dr. Hijano, who was not involved in the study also had no conflicts.

People who are seen after a patient with an influenzalike illness are 31.8% more likely to return to a their doctor’s office within 2 weeks with similar symptoms, new research shows.

Prior research has examined the issue of hospital-acquired infections. A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found that 4% of hospitalized patients acquired a health care–associated infection during their stay. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that, on any given day, one in 31 hospital patients has at least one health care–associated infection. However, researchers for the new study, published in Health Affairs, said evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings is limited.

“Hospital-acquired infections has been a problem for a while,” study author Hannah Neprash, PhD, of the department of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, said in an interview. “However, there’s never been a similar study of whether a similar phenomenon happens in physician offices. This is especially relevant now when we’re dealing with respiratory infections.”

Methods and results

For the new study, Dr. Neprash and her colleagues analyzed deidentified billing and scheduling data from 2016-2017 for 105,462,600 outpatient visits that occurred at 6,709 office-based primary care practices. They used the World Health Organization case definition for influenzalike illness “to capture cases in which the physician may suspect this illness even if a specific diagnosis code was not present.” Their control conditions included exposure to urinary tract infections and back pain.

Doctor visits were considered unexposed if they were scheduled to start at least 90 minutes before the first influenzalike illness visit of the day. They were considered exposed if they were scheduled to start at the same time or after the first influenzalike illness visit of the day at that practice.

Researchers quantified whether exposed patients were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next 2 weeks, compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day

They found that 2.7 patients per 1,000 returned within 2 weeks with an influenzalike illness.

Patients were more likely to return with influenzalike illness if their visit occurred after an influenzalike illness visit versus before, the researchers said.

The authors of the paper said their new research highlights the importance of infection control in health care settings, including outpatient offices.

Where did the exposure occur?

Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said he was not surprised by the findings, but noted that it’s hard to say if the exposure to influenzalike illnesses happened in the office or in the community.

“If you start to see individuals with influenza in your office it’s because [there’s influenza] in the community,” Dr. Hijano explained. “So that means that you will have more patients coming in with influenza.”

To reduce the transmission of infections, Dr. Neprash suggested that doctors’ offices follow the CDC guidelines for indoor conduct, which include masking, washing hands, and “taking appropriate infection control measures.”

So potentially masking within offices is a way to minimize transmission between whatever people are there to be seen when it’s contagious, Dr. Neprash said.

“Telehealth really took off in 2020 and it’s unclear what the state of telehealth will be going forward. [These findings] suggest that there’s a patient safety argument for continuing to enable primary care physicians to provide visits either by phone or by video,” he added.

Dr. Hijano thinks it would be helpful for doctors to separate patients with respiratory illnesses from those without respiratory illnesses.

Driver of transmissions

Dr. Neprash suggested that another driver of these transmissions could be doctors not washing their hands, which is a “notorious issue,” and Dr. Hijano agreed with that statement.

“We did know that the hands of physicians and nurses and care providers are the main driver of infections in the health care setting,” Dr. Hijano explained. “I mean, washing your hands properly between encounters is the single best way that any given health care provider can prevent the spread of infections.”

“We have a unique opportunity with COVID-19 to change how these clinics are operating now,” Dr. Hijano said. “Many clinics are actually asking patients to call ahead of time if you have symptoms of a respiratory illness that could be contagious, and those who are not are still mandating the use of mask and physical distance in the waiting areas and limiting the amount of number of patients in any given hour. So I think that those are really big practices that would kind of make an impact in respiratory illness in terms of decreasing transmission in clinics.”

The authors, who had no conflicts of interest said their hope is that their study will help inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings. Dr. Hijano, who was not involved in the study also had no conflicts.

People who are seen after a patient with an influenzalike illness are 31.8% more likely to return to a their doctor’s office within 2 weeks with similar symptoms, new research shows.

Prior research has examined the issue of hospital-acquired infections. A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found that 4% of hospitalized patients acquired a health care–associated infection during their stay. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that, on any given day, one in 31 hospital patients has at least one health care–associated infection. However, researchers for the new study, published in Health Affairs, said evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings is limited.

“Hospital-acquired infections has been a problem for a while,” study author Hannah Neprash, PhD, of the department of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, said in an interview. “However, there’s never been a similar study of whether a similar phenomenon happens in physician offices. This is especially relevant now when we’re dealing with respiratory infections.”

Methods and results

For the new study, Dr. Neprash and her colleagues analyzed deidentified billing and scheduling data from 2016-2017 for 105,462,600 outpatient visits that occurred at 6,709 office-based primary care practices. They used the World Health Organization case definition for influenzalike illness “to capture cases in which the physician may suspect this illness even if a specific diagnosis code was not present.” Their control conditions included exposure to urinary tract infections and back pain.

Doctor visits were considered unexposed if they were scheduled to start at least 90 minutes before the first influenzalike illness visit of the day. They were considered exposed if they were scheduled to start at the same time or after the first influenzalike illness visit of the day at that practice.

Researchers quantified whether exposed patients were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next 2 weeks, compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day

They found that 2.7 patients per 1,000 returned within 2 weeks with an influenzalike illness.

Patients were more likely to return with influenzalike illness if their visit occurred after an influenzalike illness visit versus before, the researchers said.

The authors of the paper said their new research highlights the importance of infection control in health care settings, including outpatient offices.

Where did the exposure occur?

Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said he was not surprised by the findings, but noted that it’s hard to say if the exposure to influenzalike illnesses happened in the office or in the community.

“If you start to see individuals with influenza in your office it’s because [there’s influenza] in the community,” Dr. Hijano explained. “So that means that you will have more patients coming in with influenza.”

To reduce the transmission of infections, Dr. Neprash suggested that doctors’ offices follow the CDC guidelines for indoor conduct, which include masking, washing hands, and “taking appropriate infection control measures.”

So potentially masking within offices is a way to minimize transmission between whatever people are there to be seen when it’s contagious, Dr. Neprash said.

“Telehealth really took off in 2020 and it’s unclear what the state of telehealth will be going forward. [These findings] suggest that there’s a patient safety argument for continuing to enable primary care physicians to provide visits either by phone or by video,” he added.

Dr. Hijano thinks it would be helpful for doctors to separate patients with respiratory illnesses from those without respiratory illnesses.

Driver of transmissions

Dr. Neprash suggested that another driver of these transmissions could be doctors not washing their hands, which is a “notorious issue,” and Dr. Hijano agreed with that statement.

“We did know that the hands of physicians and nurses and care providers are the main driver of infections in the health care setting,” Dr. Hijano explained. “I mean, washing your hands properly between encounters is the single best way that any given health care provider can prevent the spread of infections.”

“We have a unique opportunity with COVID-19 to change how these clinics are operating now,” Dr. Hijano said. “Many clinics are actually asking patients to call ahead of time if you have symptoms of a respiratory illness that could be contagious, and those who are not are still mandating the use of mask and physical distance in the waiting areas and limiting the amount of number of patients in any given hour. So I think that those are really big practices that would kind of make an impact in respiratory illness in terms of decreasing transmission in clinics.”

The authors, who had no conflicts of interest said their hope is that their study will help inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings. Dr. Hijano, who was not involved in the study also had no conflicts.