Jan Dyer

On any given day in 2018, one in five people had a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recently released Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Surveillance Report, 2018. There were nearly 68 million infections in the US—and 26 million STIs were acquired in that year.

                “The CDC report is an important reminder that infectious diseases continue to do what they do best, which is to cause illness and spread from person to person,” says David Aronoff, MD, director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “Sexually transmitted infections are persistent threats to human health.”

                Most of the infections on the CDC’s watchlist were due to the human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2), and trichomoniasis. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV, hepatitis B virus, and syphilis followed. Although lower on the list, gonorrhea and syphilis numbers are on the rise to a disquieting degree. Since 2014, gonorrhea cases have increased 63% and syphilis cases, 71%.

                Syphilis is still treatable with penicillin. But “the tragedy of poor STI [sexually transmitted infection] control is compounded by the fact that many of the germs that cause STIs are gradually developing more and more resistance to available treatments,” Dr. Aronoff says.

                The rise in gonorrhea cases is particularly concerning to many health care providers. “There’s a very limited pipeline of new antibiotics to use if we’re confronted with antibiotic-resistant STIs,” says Ina Park, MD, assistant professor at University of California San Francisco School of Medicine; medical director, California Prevention Training Center; and author of Strange Bedfellows: Adventures in the Science, History and Surprising Secrets of STDs. In the case of gonorrhea, she warns, we’re down to one class of antibiotics. When all conventional therapies fail in cases of multidrug-resistant gonorrhea, patients have to be hospitalized and treated with broad-spectrum IV antibiotics, such as ertapenem. “We really don’t want to have to resort to that for an infection as common as gonorrhea,” she says.

                Syphilis’ resurgence in new populations also is a concern. In the ’80s, says Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, there was an epidemic of syphilis in pregnant women and newborns. Then it “sort of quieted down,” she says, in part because obstetricians and gynecologists and other health care providers did a better job of screening, diagnosing, and treating in that demographic. The latest resurgence is in young men of color who have sex with men—“we didn’t see that coming.”

                Women and babies are still vulnerable, though. In one year, according to the CDC, syphilis cases among women of childbearing age leaped 36%. And, alarmingly, since 2014, cases of congenital syphilis have increased 185%. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, newborn deaths due to syphilis increased 22%—a “startling” number, says Gail Bolan, MD, the CDC director of STD prevention, in a release about the surveillance report. “Too many babies are needlessly dying. Every single instance of congenital syphilis is one too many when we have the tools to prevent it.”

                Can all STIs be prevented? Can the rising tides be turned? Dr. Aronoff says, “As with the COVID-19 pandemic, STIs provide an important opportunity for us to understand how multiple factors can contribute to their spread and difficulty controlling.” Drug use, poverty, unstable housing, and stigma can all reduce access to STD prevention and care, he says. “And, as we’ve seen with COVID-19, under-resourced public health programs can also foster epidemics and pandemics of STIs.” Moreover, he adds, many public health programs at the state and local level have been subjected to budget cuts, which translates into less control of disease.

                Some STI rates have been reduced with, for instance, antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS and the HPV vaccine. But there’s still ground to cover, and new patient groups to protect. Nearly half of all new infections in 2018 were in young people aged 15 to 24 years. Not only is it another dangerous trend, it is an expensive one. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis combined accounted for $1.1 billion in direct medical costs in 2018, the CDC report says, and care for young people aged 15 to 24 made up about 60% of those costs.

                “Low or decreasing rates of condom use among vulnerable groups, including young people and gay and bisexual men, play important roles in driving ongoing STI rates,” Aronoff says. In part, that’s due to lack of comprehensive sex education, a lack that’s taking a huge toll.

                “Remember now, we basically cut out a lot of the sex education. It doesn’t exist,” says Dr. Collins-Ogle. She has run clinics for several decades, and says she continually sees young male patients who don’t know how to use a condom. We know more now, though, she points out. “Back in the ‘80s, we didn’t have a direct correlation between STIs and AIDS. Now we know that having syphilis, for example, predisposes you to HIV acquisition. We also know that having HSV2, for example, predisposes you to HIV.”

                It’s an ongoing battle, though, with each new generation of pathogens—and people. And as the CDC report shows, it’s like fighting a Hydra: When one infection is wrestled to the ground, another rears its head. There’s no time to rest on laurels. “Having highly contagious infections caused by difficult or impossible-to-treat microbes,” says David Aronoff, “is not a future I would wish on anyone

On any given day in 2018, one in five people had a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recently released Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Surveillance Report, 2018. There were nearly 68 million infections in the US—and 26 million STIs were acquired in that year.

                “The CDC report is an important reminder that infectious diseases continue to do what they do best, which is to cause illness and spread from person to person,” says David Aronoff, MD, director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “Sexually transmitted infections are persistent threats to human health.”

                Most of the infections on the CDC’s watchlist were due to the human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2), and trichomoniasis. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV, hepatitis B virus, and syphilis followed. Although lower on the list, gonorrhea and syphilis numbers are on the rise to a disquieting degree. Since 2014, gonorrhea cases have increased 63% and syphilis cases, 71%.

                Syphilis is still treatable with penicillin. But “the tragedy of poor STI [sexually transmitted infection] control is compounded by the fact that many of the germs that cause STIs are gradually developing more and more resistance to available treatments,” Dr. Aronoff says.

                The rise in gonorrhea cases is particularly concerning to many health care providers. “There’s a very limited pipeline of new antibiotics to use if we’re confronted with antibiotic-resistant STIs,” says Ina Park, MD, assistant professor at University of California San Francisco School of Medicine; medical director, California Prevention Training Center; and author of Strange Bedfellows: Adventures in the Science, History and Surprising Secrets of STDs. In the case of gonorrhea, she warns, we’re down to one class of antibiotics. When all conventional therapies fail in cases of multidrug-resistant gonorrhea, patients have to be hospitalized and treated with broad-spectrum IV antibiotics, such as ertapenem. “We really don’t want to have to resort to that for an infection as common as gonorrhea,” she says.

                Syphilis’ resurgence in new populations also is a concern. In the ’80s, says Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, there was an epidemic of syphilis in pregnant women and newborns. Then it “sort of quieted down,” she says, in part because obstetricians and gynecologists and other health care providers did a better job of screening, diagnosing, and treating in that demographic. The latest resurgence is in young men of color who have sex with men—“we didn’t see that coming.”

                Women and babies are still vulnerable, though. In one year, according to the CDC, syphilis cases among women of childbearing age leaped 36%. And, alarmingly, since 2014, cases of congenital syphilis have increased 185%. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, newborn deaths due to syphilis increased 22%—a “startling” number, says Gail Bolan, MD, the CDC director of STD prevention, in a release about the surveillance report. “Too many babies are needlessly dying. Every single instance of congenital syphilis is one too many when we have the tools to prevent it.”

                Can all STIs be prevented? Can the rising tides be turned? Dr. Aronoff says, “As with the COVID-19 pandemic, STIs provide an important opportunity for us to understand how multiple factors can contribute to their spread and difficulty controlling.” Drug use, poverty, unstable housing, and stigma can all reduce access to STD prevention and care, he says. “And, as we’ve seen with COVID-19, under-resourced public health programs can also foster epidemics and pandemics of STIs.” Moreover, he adds, many public health programs at the state and local level have been subjected to budget cuts, which translates into less control of disease.

                Some STI rates have been reduced with, for instance, antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS and the HPV vaccine. But there’s still ground to cover, and new patient groups to protect. Nearly half of all new infections in 2018 were in young people aged 15 to 24 years. Not only is it another dangerous trend, it is an expensive one. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis combined accounted for $1.1 billion in direct medical costs in 2018, the CDC report says, and care for young people aged 15 to 24 made up about 60% of those costs.

                “Low or decreasing rates of condom use among vulnerable groups, including young people and gay and bisexual men, play important roles in driving ongoing STI rates,” Aronoff says. In part, that’s due to lack of comprehensive sex education, a lack that’s taking a huge toll.

                “Remember now, we basically cut out a lot of the sex education. It doesn’t exist,” says Dr. Collins-Ogle. She has run clinics for several decades, and says she continually sees young male patients who don’t know how to use a condom. We know more now, though, she points out. “Back in the ‘80s, we didn’t have a direct correlation between STIs and AIDS. Now we know that having syphilis, for example, predisposes you to HIV acquisition. We also know that having HSV2, for example, predisposes you to HIV.”

                It’s an ongoing battle, though, with each new generation of pathogens—and people. And as the CDC report shows, it’s like fighting a Hydra: When one infection is wrestled to the ground, another rears its head. There’s no time to rest on laurels. “Having highly contagious infections caused by difficult or impossible-to-treat microbes,” says David Aronoff, “is not a future I would wish on anyone

On any given day in 2018, one in five people had a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recently released Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Surveillance Report, 2018. There were nearly 68 million infections in the US—and 26 million STIs were acquired in that year.

                “The CDC report is an important reminder that infectious diseases continue to do what they do best, which is to cause illness and spread from person to person,” says David Aronoff, MD, director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “Sexually transmitted infections are persistent threats to human health.”

                Most of the infections on the CDC’s watchlist were due to the human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2), and trichomoniasis. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, HIV, hepatitis B virus, and syphilis followed. Although lower on the list, gonorrhea and syphilis numbers are on the rise to a disquieting degree. Since 2014, gonorrhea cases have increased 63% and syphilis cases, 71%.

                Syphilis is still treatable with penicillin. But “the tragedy of poor STI [sexually transmitted infection] control is compounded by the fact that many of the germs that cause STIs are gradually developing more and more resistance to available treatments,” Dr. Aronoff says.

                The rise in gonorrhea cases is particularly concerning to many health care providers. “There’s a very limited pipeline of new antibiotics to use if we’re confronted with antibiotic-resistant STIs,” says Ina Park, MD, assistant professor at University of California San Francisco School of Medicine; medical director, California Prevention Training Center; and author of Strange Bedfellows: Adventures in the Science, History and Surprising Secrets of STDs. In the case of gonorrhea, she warns, we’re down to one class of antibiotics. When all conventional therapies fail in cases of multidrug-resistant gonorrhea, patients have to be hospitalized and treated with broad-spectrum IV antibiotics, such as ertapenem. “We really don’t want to have to resort to that for an infection as common as gonorrhea,” she says.

                Syphilis’ resurgence in new populations also is a concern. In the ’80s, says Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, there was an epidemic of syphilis in pregnant women and newborns. Then it “sort of quieted down,” she says, in part because obstetricians and gynecologists and other health care providers did a better job of screening, diagnosing, and treating in that demographic. The latest resurgence is in young men of color who have sex with men—“we didn’t see that coming.”

                Women and babies are still vulnerable, though. In one year, according to the CDC, syphilis cases among women of childbearing age leaped 36%. And, alarmingly, since 2014, cases of congenital syphilis have increased 185%. Between 2017 and 2018 alone, newborn deaths due to syphilis increased 22%—a “startling” number, says Gail Bolan, MD, the CDC director of STD prevention, in a release about the surveillance report. “Too many babies are needlessly dying. Every single instance of congenital syphilis is one too many when we have the tools to prevent it.”

                Can all STIs be prevented? Can the rising tides be turned? Dr. Aronoff says, “As with the COVID-19 pandemic, STIs provide an important opportunity for us to understand how multiple factors can contribute to their spread and difficulty controlling.” Drug use, poverty, unstable housing, and stigma can all reduce access to STD prevention and care, he says. “And, as we’ve seen with COVID-19, under-resourced public health programs can also foster epidemics and pandemics of STIs.” Moreover, he adds, many public health programs at the state and local level have been subjected to budget cuts, which translates into less control of disease.

                Some STI rates have been reduced with, for instance, antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS and the HPV vaccine. But there’s still ground to cover, and new patient groups to protect. Nearly half of all new infections in 2018 were in young people aged 15 to 24 years. Not only is it another dangerous trend, it is an expensive one. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis combined accounted for $1.1 billion in direct medical costs in 2018, the CDC report says, and care for young people aged 15 to 24 made up about 60% of those costs.

                “Low or decreasing rates of condom use among vulnerable groups, including young people and gay and bisexual men, play important roles in driving ongoing STI rates,” Aronoff says. In part, that’s due to lack of comprehensive sex education, a lack that’s taking a huge toll.

                “Remember now, we basically cut out a lot of the sex education. It doesn’t exist,” says Dr. Collins-Ogle. She has run clinics for several decades, and says she continually sees young male patients who don’t know how to use a condom. We know more now, though, she points out. “Back in the ‘80s, we didn’t have a direct correlation between STIs and AIDS. Now we know that having syphilis, for example, predisposes you to HIV acquisition. We also know that having HSV2, for example, predisposes you to HIV.”

                It’s an ongoing battle, though, with each new generation of pathogens—and people. And as the CDC report shows, it’s like fighting a Hydra: When one infection is wrestled to the ground, another rears its head. There’s no time to rest on laurels. “Having highly contagious infections caused by difficult or impossible-to-treat microbes,” says David Aronoff, “is not a future I would wish on anyone

Risk assessment becomes more complex during a pandemic—but even more necessary. Researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University and Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Afffairs Medical Center who studied a population of veterans who underwent leg amputation found that “preoperative testing may not be a feasible and well-applied standard, making risk assessment in the setting of a pandemic even more crucial for surgeons undertaking lower extremity amputations in this high-risk population.”

                 In their study, the researchers found that a majority of the patients had one or more risk factor from the list published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). What’s more, based on their data, the researchers say veteran amputees are at a much higher risk for complications and negative outcomes if infected with COVID-19, compared with the general population.

                Of 50,083 veterans who needed nontraumatic lower extremity amputations between 1999 and 2018, 82% of those with above-knee amputations and 89% of those with below-knee amputations had at least one ECDC risk factor comorbidity. Hypertension and diabetes were the two most prevalent conditions in all cohorts, regardless of race.

                Between 40% and 50% of the patients studied were current or past smokers, “well beyond the prevalence of smoking” in the general US population,” the researchers say. One quarter of the veterans were Black. That also is a greater proportion than the proportion of Black patients in the national male veteran population; race is an “especially concerning” potential COVID-19 progression factor, the researchers say.

                A year after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the researchers examined the association of Risk Analysis Index scores with postoperative outcomes in 47,197 patients who underwent lower extremity amputation: 27,098 below the knee and 20,099 above the knee amputations.

                Frailty was associated with increased rates of major cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications, as well as sepsis, intubation greater than 48 hours, reintubation, and increased length of stay. Higher frailty scores were associated with up to triple the likelihood of a postoperative complication and up to 32 times likelihood of death within 30 days.

                In a previous study, the researchers concluded that standardized frailty indicators might be particularly relevant in a pandemic that has a heavy impact in elderly patients with comorbidities. The risk factors for COVID-19, they note, are similar to many of the factors assessed in surgical frailty scores. Surgical frailty and its assessment, they add, have become “essential considerations” in perioperative management for aging patients.

Risk assessment becomes more complex during a pandemic—but even more necessary. Researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University and Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Afffairs Medical Center who studied a population of veterans who underwent leg amputation found that “preoperative testing may not be a feasible and well-applied standard, making risk assessment in the setting of a pandemic even more crucial for surgeons undertaking lower extremity amputations in this high-risk population.”

                 In their study, the researchers found that a majority of the patients had one or more risk factor from the list published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). What’s more, based on their data, the researchers say veteran amputees are at a much higher risk for complications and negative outcomes if infected with COVID-19, compared with the general population.

                Of 50,083 veterans who needed nontraumatic lower extremity amputations between 1999 and 2018, 82% of those with above-knee amputations and 89% of those with below-knee amputations had at least one ECDC risk factor comorbidity. Hypertension and diabetes were the two most prevalent conditions in all cohorts, regardless of race.

                Between 40% and 50% of the patients studied were current or past smokers, “well beyond the prevalence of smoking” in the general US population,” the researchers say. One quarter of the veterans were Black. That also is a greater proportion than the proportion of Black patients in the national male veteran population; race is an “especially concerning” potential COVID-19 progression factor, the researchers say.

                A year after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the researchers examined the association of Risk Analysis Index scores with postoperative outcomes in 47,197 patients who underwent lower extremity amputation: 27,098 below the knee and 20,099 above the knee amputations.

                Frailty was associated with increased rates of major cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications, as well as sepsis, intubation greater than 48 hours, reintubation, and increased length of stay. Higher frailty scores were associated with up to triple the likelihood of a postoperative complication and up to 32 times likelihood of death within 30 days.

                In a previous study, the researchers concluded that standardized frailty indicators might be particularly relevant in a pandemic that has a heavy impact in elderly patients with comorbidities. The risk factors for COVID-19, they note, are similar to many of the factors assessed in surgical frailty scores. Surgical frailty and its assessment, they add, have become “essential considerations” in perioperative management for aging patients.

Risk assessment becomes more complex during a pandemic—but even more necessary. Researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University and Hunter Holmes McGuire Veterans Afffairs Medical Center who studied a population of veterans who underwent leg amputation found that “preoperative testing may not be a feasible and well-applied standard, making risk assessment in the setting of a pandemic even more crucial for surgeons undertaking lower extremity amputations in this high-risk population.”

                 In their study, the researchers found that a majority of the patients had one or more risk factor from the list published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). What’s more, based on their data, the researchers say veteran amputees are at a much higher risk for complications and negative outcomes if infected with COVID-19, compared with the general population.

                Of 50,083 veterans who needed nontraumatic lower extremity amputations between 1999 and 2018, 82% of those with above-knee amputations and 89% of those with below-knee amputations had at least one ECDC risk factor comorbidity. Hypertension and diabetes were the two most prevalent conditions in all cohorts, regardless of race.

                Between 40% and 50% of the patients studied were current or past smokers, “well beyond the prevalence of smoking” in the general US population,” the researchers say. One quarter of the veterans were Black. That also is a greater proportion than the proportion of Black patients in the national male veteran population; race is an “especially concerning” potential COVID-19 progression factor, the researchers say.

                A year after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the researchers examined the association of Risk Analysis Index scores with postoperative outcomes in 47,197 patients who underwent lower extremity amputation: 27,098 below the knee and 20,099 above the knee amputations.

                Frailty was associated with increased rates of major cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications, as well as sepsis, intubation greater than 48 hours, reintubation, and increased length of stay. Higher frailty scores were associated with up to triple the likelihood of a postoperative complication and up to 32 times likelihood of death within 30 days.

                In a previous study, the researchers concluded that standardized frailty indicators might be particularly relevant in a pandemic that has a heavy impact in elderly patients with comorbidities. The risk factors for COVID-19, they note, are similar to many of the factors assessed in surgical frailty scores. Surgical frailty and its assessment, they add, have become “essential considerations” in perioperative management for aging patients.

The Biden Administration launched the first phase of the Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Program for COVID-19 Vaccination. Beginning February 15, FQHCs (including centers in the Urban Indian Health Program) began directly receiving vaccines.

                The announcement coincided with a boost in vaccine supply for states, Tribes, and territories. In early February, the Biden Administration announced it would expand vaccine supply to 11 million doses nationwide, a 28% increase since January 20, when President Biden took office. According to a White House fact sheet, “The Administration is committing to maintaining this as the minimum supply level for the next three weeks, and we will continue to work with manufacturers in their efforts to ramp up supply.”

                In February, President Biden and Vice President Harris travelled to Arizona and toured a vaccination site at State Farm Stadium in Glendale. Arizona, one of the first states to reach out for federal help from the new administration, has 15 counties and 22 Tribes with sovereign lands in the state. Those 37 entities work collaboratively with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), said Major General Michael McGuire, head of the Arizona National Guard.

                In his remarks during the tour, President Biden addressed equity, saying, “[I]t really does matter that we have access to the people who are most in need [and are] most affected by the COVID crisis, dying at faster rates, getting sick at faster rates, …but not being able to get into the mix. …Equity is a big thing.”

                To that end, one of the programs under way is to stand up four vaccination centers for the Navajo Nation. Tammy Littrell, Acting Regional Administrator for FEMA, said the centers will help increase tribal members’ access to vaccination, as well as take the burden off from having to drive in “austere winter conditions.”

                In addition to more vaccines, Indian Health Services (IHS) is allocating $1 billion it received to help with COVID-19 response. Of the $1 billion, $790 million will go to testing, contact tracing, containment, and mitigation, among other things. Another $210 million will support IHS, tribal, and urban Indian health programs for vaccine-related activities to ensure broad-based distribution, access, and vaccine coverage. The money is part of the fifth round of supplemental COVID-19 funding from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. The funds transferred so far amount to nearly $3 billion.

                According to IHS, the money can be used to scale up testing by public health, academic, commercial, and hospital laboratories, as well as community-based testing sites, mobile testing units, healthcare facilities, and other entities engaged in COVID-19 testing. The funds are also legally available to lease or purchase non-federally owned facilities to improve COVID-19 preparedness and response capability.

The Biden Administration launched the first phase of the Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Program for COVID-19 Vaccination. Beginning February 15, FQHCs (including centers in the Urban Indian Health Program) began directly receiving vaccines.

                The announcement coincided with a boost in vaccine supply for states, Tribes, and territories. In early February, the Biden Administration announced it would expand vaccine supply to 11 million doses nationwide, a 28% increase since January 20, when President Biden took office. According to a White House fact sheet, “The Administration is committing to maintaining this as the minimum supply level for the next three weeks, and we will continue to work with manufacturers in their efforts to ramp up supply.”

                In February, President Biden and Vice President Harris travelled to Arizona and toured a vaccination site at State Farm Stadium in Glendale. Arizona, one of the first states to reach out for federal help from the new administration, has 15 counties and 22 Tribes with sovereign lands in the state. Those 37 entities work collaboratively with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), said Major General Michael McGuire, head of the Arizona National Guard.

                In his remarks during the tour, President Biden addressed equity, saying, “[I]t really does matter that we have access to the people who are most in need [and are] most affected by the COVID crisis, dying at faster rates, getting sick at faster rates, …but not being able to get into the mix. …Equity is a big thing.”

                To that end, one of the programs under way is to stand up four vaccination centers for the Navajo Nation. Tammy Littrell, Acting Regional Administrator for FEMA, said the centers will help increase tribal members’ access to vaccination, as well as take the burden off from having to drive in “austere winter conditions.”

                In addition to more vaccines, Indian Health Services (IHS) is allocating $1 billion it received to help with COVID-19 response. Of the $1 billion, $790 million will go to testing, contact tracing, containment, and mitigation, among other things. Another $210 million will support IHS, tribal, and urban Indian health programs for vaccine-related activities to ensure broad-based distribution, access, and vaccine coverage. The money is part of the fifth round of supplemental COVID-19 funding from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. The funds transferred so far amount to nearly $3 billion.

                According to IHS, the money can be used to scale up testing by public health, academic, commercial, and hospital laboratories, as well as community-based testing sites, mobile testing units, healthcare facilities, and other entities engaged in COVID-19 testing. The funds are also legally available to lease or purchase non-federally owned facilities to improve COVID-19 preparedness and response capability.

The Biden Administration launched the first phase of the Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Program for COVID-19 Vaccination. Beginning February 15, FQHCs (including centers in the Urban Indian Health Program) began directly receiving vaccines.

                The announcement coincided with a boost in vaccine supply for states, Tribes, and territories. In early February, the Biden Administration announced it would expand vaccine supply to 11 million doses nationwide, a 28% increase since January 20, when President Biden took office. According to a White House fact sheet, “The Administration is committing to maintaining this as the minimum supply level for the next three weeks, and we will continue to work with manufacturers in their efforts to ramp up supply.”

                In February, President Biden and Vice President Harris travelled to Arizona and toured a vaccination site at State Farm Stadium in Glendale. Arizona, one of the first states to reach out for federal help from the new administration, has 15 counties and 22 Tribes with sovereign lands in the state. Those 37 entities work collaboratively with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), said Major General Michael McGuire, head of the Arizona National Guard.

                In his remarks during the tour, President Biden addressed equity, saying, “[I]t really does matter that we have access to the people who are most in need [and are] most affected by the COVID crisis, dying at faster rates, getting sick at faster rates, …but not being able to get into the mix. …Equity is a big thing.”

                To that end, one of the programs under way is to stand up four vaccination centers for the Navajo Nation. Tammy Littrell, Acting Regional Administrator for FEMA, said the centers will help increase tribal members’ access to vaccination, as well as take the burden off from having to drive in “austere winter conditions.”

                In addition to more vaccines, Indian Health Services (IHS) is allocating $1 billion it received to help with COVID-19 response. Of the $1 billion, $790 million will go to testing, contact tracing, containment, and mitigation, among other things. Another $210 million will support IHS, tribal, and urban Indian health programs for vaccine-related activities to ensure broad-based distribution, access, and vaccine coverage. The money is part of the fifth round of supplemental COVID-19 funding from the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. The funds transferred so far amount to nearly $3 billion.

                According to IHS, the money can be used to scale up testing by public health, academic, commercial, and hospital laboratories, as well as community-based testing sites, mobile testing units, healthcare facilities, and other entities engaged in COVID-19 testing. The funds are also legally available to lease or purchase non-federally owned facilities to improve COVID-19 preparedness and response capability.

COVID-19 upended everything last year, including routine health care such as older people receiving their pneumonia, pertussis, and shingles shots. Weekly vaccinations for Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years dropped in the first half of 2020 by up to 89% when compared with the first half of 2019. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied weekly receipt of 4 vaccines: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and recombinant zoster vaccine.

Before the national emergency was declared in March 2020, vaccination rates were consistently higher among Medicare beneficiaries than in the corresponding weeks in 2019. After the declaration, vaccination rates began dropping precipitously. In the first week alone, the rates were 25 to 62% lower than during the corresponding week in 2019.

Vaccination rates declined for all the vaccines studied, overall, and across all racial and ethnic groups. They began to recover gradually between late April and July, but were still lower in the last study week compared with 2019, except for PPSV23.

The emphasis naturally has been largely on COVID-19, but the other infections still present risks for older people. And now that states are beginning to lift restrictions, the researchers say, the likelihood of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is increasing. They urge health care providers to continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine vaccinations, and to emphasize the safety of the vaccines.

Importantly, practitioners also need to explain to patients about expected reactions to some vaccines, and help them understand the potential overlap between vaccination reactions and symptoms of COVID-19.

COVID-19 upended everything last year, including routine health care such as older people receiving their pneumonia, pertussis, and shingles shots. Weekly vaccinations for Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years dropped in the first half of 2020 by up to 89% when compared with the first half of 2019. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied weekly receipt of 4 vaccines: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and recombinant zoster vaccine.

Before the national emergency was declared in March 2020, vaccination rates were consistently higher among Medicare beneficiaries than in the corresponding weeks in 2019. After the declaration, vaccination rates began dropping precipitously. In the first week alone, the rates were 25 to 62% lower than during the corresponding week in 2019.

Vaccination rates declined for all the vaccines studied, overall, and across all racial and ethnic groups. They began to recover gradually between late April and July, but were still lower in the last study week compared with 2019, except for PPSV23.

The emphasis naturally has been largely on COVID-19, but the other infections still present risks for older people. And now that states are beginning to lift restrictions, the researchers say, the likelihood of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is increasing. They urge health care providers to continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine vaccinations, and to emphasize the safety of the vaccines.

Importantly, practitioners also need to explain to patients about expected reactions to some vaccines, and help them understand the potential overlap between vaccination reactions and symptoms of COVID-19.

COVID-19 upended everything last year, including routine health care such as older people receiving their pneumonia, pertussis, and shingles shots. Weekly vaccinations for Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years dropped in the first half of 2020 by up to 89% when compared with the first half of 2019. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied weekly receipt of 4 vaccines: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and recombinant zoster vaccine.

Before the national emergency was declared in March 2020, vaccination rates were consistently higher among Medicare beneficiaries than in the corresponding weeks in 2019. After the declaration, vaccination rates began dropping precipitously. In the first week alone, the rates were 25 to 62% lower than during the corresponding week in 2019.

Vaccination rates declined for all the vaccines studied, overall, and across all racial and ethnic groups. They began to recover gradually between late April and July, but were still lower in the last study week compared with 2019, except for PPSV23.

The emphasis naturally has been largely on COVID-19, but the other infections still present risks for older people. And now that states are beginning to lift restrictions, the researchers say, the likelihood of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is increasing. They urge health care providers to continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine vaccinations, and to emphasize the safety of the vaccines.

Importantly, practitioners also need to explain to patients about expected reactions to some vaccines, and help them understand the potential overlap between vaccination reactions and symptoms of COVID-19.

A large portion of the general American public is still feeling wary of the COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent Pew Research survey, about 40% of respondents said they “would not get the vaccine” (although about half of that group allowed for flexibility and said they might when more information becomes available). In the Native American community, however, it’s a different story.

According to the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers in the US, 75% of the 1,435 American Indian/Alaska Native participants in its National COVID-19 Vaccination Survey were willing to receive the vaccine. A big reason is that the emphasis in Native American communities has been on “we,” rather than “me.” Even though the respondents might feel reluctant due to “historical and current abuse from healthcare and government institutions,” the UIHI says, they ultimately felt the heavy cost of COVID-19 for them, their friends, families, and community outweighed potential risks.

Where there is hesitancy, it’s often due to concern about the exceptional speed of the clinical trials assessing the vaccines. Of those who were willing to get vaccinated, two-thirds were confident that the vaccines had been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness among Native people, in contrast to 31% of the “unwilling.” Seventy-five percent of the unwilling perceive the vaccine as dangerous to their health.

The willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine varied by Indian Health Services (IHS) region, with California Area having the lowest proportion (64%) and Albuquerque Area the highest (86%). The survey also asked about perceptions of COVID-19: 75% of those unwilling to get vaccinated felt they were at risk of being infected with COVID-19, compared with 85% of those willing to get a vaccine. Interestingly, though, the majority in the “unwilling” group takes the infection seriously and acknowledges the spread of COVID-19 in the state where they live.

The primary motivation for getting vaccinated, UIHI says, is a “strong sense of responsibility to protect the Native community and preserve cultural ways”—74% of all participants supported this concept. That’s a unique difference when compared with other communities of color, UIHI says. By comparison, only 36% of black communities and 53% of Latinx communities have been found to perceive vaccination as a community responsibility. The finding illustrates the importance of community in Native American culture—although that also differs within the 2 groups surveyed: Of those willing to get vaccinated, 87% believe it’s their communal responsibility, whereas 66% of the unwilling believe it’s an individual choice.

Tribal campaigns that emphasize the good individuals can do for the tribe appear to appeal. In an interview with NBC News, Abigail Echo-Hawk, director of UIHI, said the Seattle Indian Health Board, for example, went from about 7,000 calls a month about the vaccine to nearly 5,000 on 1 day. 

But it isn’t just the appeal to communal feeling that spurs participation—it’s also the knowledge that protecting people protects the culture. The Cherokee Tribe, for instance, has been mobilizing to get as many people vaccinated as possible, starting with some of the “most endangered members of the tribe”: those who still speak Cherokee. “We put Cherokee-fluent speakers, most of whom are elders, at the front of the line,” Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., leader of the Cherokee Nation, told NBC News. The tribe was able to put its roughly 22,000 Cherokee speakers at the top of the list because it answers to the IHS, not the state of Oklahoma, which has people aged < 65 years in Phase 4 of its vaccine rollout.

Appealing to the reverence for Native American culture and tradition is a wise move. Not only because it protects people, but also because vaccinating elders and fluent speakers may reassure others. “When fluent speakers got the vaccine, I think that helped people’s anxiety subside,” Hoskins said. “And I think people felt sort of a renewed obligation to try and protect the culture by being vaccinated.”

Many of the survey respondents viewed getting vaccinated as an act of love, protecting others. One participant planned to get the vaccine to “protect the knowledge keepers; ensuring knowledge is passed to our future generations.”

A majority of UIHI survey respondents who were unwilling to get vaccinated indicated they would be willing at some point in the future—often at least one year from now. This, UIHI says, “may suggest with proper messaging and education on the efficacy and safety of vaccine, hesitancy can be addressed.”

That could depend on who’s delivering the message. The greatest difference between the 2 groups, the UIHI says, was that those who were willing to take vaccines trusted government organizations (ie,Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) and their regular doctor. Those unwilling to get vaccinated had the highest trust in Urban Indian health clinics, their regular doctor, and Tribal clinics, respectively. The biggest divide? Almost all of the willing group “mostly” or “completely” trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci and the scientists working on the vaccines. Most of the unwilling group does not.

Factors such as convenience, cost, and advice all entered into the respondents’ decision making. But one of the UIHI’s key recommendations is to continue to draw connections between getting vaccinated and the preservation of Native traditions, cultural pride, and love and respect for family, elders, and the broader Native community. Elders, Native community leaders, and Tribal leaders were among the top ambassadors for getting the message out, the UIHI survey found.

Ultimately, each individual decides who to trust. One of the survey respondents said, “Although the US government should have and could have done so much more for all people living here, if we turn down the vaccine, we not only risk our lives and the lives of others…we undermine all the struggles our tribes have gone through to keep our people safe. Even when the US government has directly worked against our tribal checkpoints and safety efforts. To not get vaccinated, is to say the US government’s failure to protect the people is right, and our tribal efforts, wisdom, and courage is wrong.”

A large portion of the general American public is still feeling wary of the COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent Pew Research survey, about 40% of respondents said they “would not get the vaccine” (although about half of that group allowed for flexibility and said they might when more information becomes available). In the Native American community, however, it’s a different story.

According to the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers in the US, 75% of the 1,435 American Indian/Alaska Native participants in its National COVID-19 Vaccination Survey were willing to receive the vaccine. A big reason is that the emphasis in Native American communities has been on “we,” rather than “me.” Even though the respondents might feel reluctant due to “historical and current abuse from healthcare and government institutions,” the UIHI says, they ultimately felt the heavy cost of COVID-19 for them, their friends, families, and community outweighed potential risks.

Where there is hesitancy, it’s often due to concern about the exceptional speed of the clinical trials assessing the vaccines. Of those who were willing to get vaccinated, two-thirds were confident that the vaccines had been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness among Native people, in contrast to 31% of the “unwilling.” Seventy-five percent of the unwilling perceive the vaccine as dangerous to their health.

The willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine varied by Indian Health Services (IHS) region, with California Area having the lowest proportion (64%) and Albuquerque Area the highest (86%). The survey also asked about perceptions of COVID-19: 75% of those unwilling to get vaccinated felt they were at risk of being infected with COVID-19, compared with 85% of those willing to get a vaccine. Interestingly, though, the majority in the “unwilling” group takes the infection seriously and acknowledges the spread of COVID-19 in the state where they live.

The primary motivation for getting vaccinated, UIHI says, is a “strong sense of responsibility to protect the Native community and preserve cultural ways”—74% of all participants supported this concept. That’s a unique difference when compared with other communities of color, UIHI says. By comparison, only 36% of black communities and 53% of Latinx communities have been found to perceive vaccination as a community responsibility. The finding illustrates the importance of community in Native American culture—although that also differs within the 2 groups surveyed: Of those willing to get vaccinated, 87% believe it’s their communal responsibility, whereas 66% of the unwilling believe it’s an individual choice.

Tribal campaigns that emphasize the good individuals can do for the tribe appear to appeal. In an interview with NBC News, Abigail Echo-Hawk, director of UIHI, said the Seattle Indian Health Board, for example, went from about 7,000 calls a month about the vaccine to nearly 5,000 on 1 day. 

But it isn’t just the appeal to communal feeling that spurs participation—it’s also the knowledge that protecting people protects the culture. The Cherokee Tribe, for instance, has been mobilizing to get as many people vaccinated as possible, starting with some of the “most endangered members of the tribe”: those who still speak Cherokee. “We put Cherokee-fluent speakers, most of whom are elders, at the front of the line,” Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., leader of the Cherokee Nation, told NBC News. The tribe was able to put its roughly 22,000 Cherokee speakers at the top of the list because it answers to the IHS, not the state of Oklahoma, which has people aged < 65 years in Phase 4 of its vaccine rollout.

Appealing to the reverence for Native American culture and tradition is a wise move. Not only because it protects people, but also because vaccinating elders and fluent speakers may reassure others. “When fluent speakers got the vaccine, I think that helped people’s anxiety subside,” Hoskins said. “And I think people felt sort of a renewed obligation to try and protect the culture by being vaccinated.”

Many of the survey respondents viewed getting vaccinated as an act of love, protecting others. One participant planned to get the vaccine to “protect the knowledge keepers; ensuring knowledge is passed to our future generations.”

A majority of UIHI survey respondents who were unwilling to get vaccinated indicated they would be willing at some point in the future—often at least one year from now. This, UIHI says, “may suggest with proper messaging and education on the efficacy and safety of vaccine, hesitancy can be addressed.”

That could depend on who’s delivering the message. The greatest difference between the 2 groups, the UIHI says, was that those who were willing to take vaccines trusted government organizations (ie,Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) and their regular doctor. Those unwilling to get vaccinated had the highest trust in Urban Indian health clinics, their regular doctor, and Tribal clinics, respectively. The biggest divide? Almost all of the willing group “mostly” or “completely” trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci and the scientists working on the vaccines. Most of the unwilling group does not.

Factors such as convenience, cost, and advice all entered into the respondents’ decision making. But one of the UIHI’s key recommendations is to continue to draw connections between getting vaccinated and the preservation of Native traditions, cultural pride, and love and respect for family, elders, and the broader Native community. Elders, Native community leaders, and Tribal leaders were among the top ambassadors for getting the message out, the UIHI survey found.

Ultimately, each individual decides who to trust. One of the survey respondents said, “Although the US government should have and could have done so much more for all people living here, if we turn down the vaccine, we not only risk our lives and the lives of others…we undermine all the struggles our tribes have gone through to keep our people safe. Even when the US government has directly worked against our tribal checkpoints and safety efforts. To not get vaccinated, is to say the US government’s failure to protect the people is right, and our tribal efforts, wisdom, and courage is wrong.”

A large portion of the general American public is still feeling wary of the COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent Pew Research survey, about 40% of respondents said they “would not get the vaccine” (although about half of that group allowed for flexibility and said they might when more information becomes available). In the Native American community, however, it’s a different story.

According to the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers in the US, 75% of the 1,435 American Indian/Alaska Native participants in its National COVID-19 Vaccination Survey were willing to receive the vaccine. A big reason is that the emphasis in Native American communities has been on “we,” rather than “me.” Even though the respondents might feel reluctant due to “historical and current abuse from healthcare and government institutions,” the UIHI says, they ultimately felt the heavy cost of COVID-19 for them, their friends, families, and community outweighed potential risks.

Where there is hesitancy, it’s often due to concern about the exceptional speed of the clinical trials assessing the vaccines. Of those who were willing to get vaccinated, two-thirds were confident that the vaccines had been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness among Native people, in contrast to 31% of the “unwilling.” Seventy-five percent of the unwilling perceive the vaccine as dangerous to their health.

The willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine varied by Indian Health Services (IHS) region, with California Area having the lowest proportion (64%) and Albuquerque Area the highest (86%). The survey also asked about perceptions of COVID-19: 75% of those unwilling to get vaccinated felt they were at risk of being infected with COVID-19, compared with 85% of those willing to get a vaccine. Interestingly, though, the majority in the “unwilling” group takes the infection seriously and acknowledges the spread of COVID-19 in the state where they live.

The primary motivation for getting vaccinated, UIHI says, is a “strong sense of responsibility to protect the Native community and preserve cultural ways”—74% of all participants supported this concept. That’s a unique difference when compared with other communities of color, UIHI says. By comparison, only 36% of black communities and 53% of Latinx communities have been found to perceive vaccination as a community responsibility. The finding illustrates the importance of community in Native American culture—although that also differs within the 2 groups surveyed: Of those willing to get vaccinated, 87% believe it’s their communal responsibility, whereas 66% of the unwilling believe it’s an individual choice.

Tribal campaigns that emphasize the good individuals can do for the tribe appear to appeal. In an interview with NBC News, Abigail Echo-Hawk, director of UIHI, said the Seattle Indian Health Board, for example, went from about 7,000 calls a month about the vaccine to nearly 5,000 on 1 day. 

But it isn’t just the appeal to communal feeling that spurs participation—it’s also the knowledge that protecting people protects the culture. The Cherokee Tribe, for instance, has been mobilizing to get as many people vaccinated as possible, starting with some of the “most endangered members of the tribe”: those who still speak Cherokee. “We put Cherokee-fluent speakers, most of whom are elders, at the front of the line,” Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., leader of the Cherokee Nation, told NBC News. The tribe was able to put its roughly 22,000 Cherokee speakers at the top of the list because it answers to the IHS, not the state of Oklahoma, which has people aged < 65 years in Phase 4 of its vaccine rollout.

Appealing to the reverence for Native American culture and tradition is a wise move. Not only because it protects people, but also because vaccinating elders and fluent speakers may reassure others. “When fluent speakers got the vaccine, I think that helped people’s anxiety subside,” Hoskins said. “And I think people felt sort of a renewed obligation to try and protect the culture by being vaccinated.”

Many of the survey respondents viewed getting vaccinated as an act of love, protecting others. One participant planned to get the vaccine to “protect the knowledge keepers; ensuring knowledge is passed to our future generations.”

A majority of UIHI survey respondents who were unwilling to get vaccinated indicated they would be willing at some point in the future—often at least one year from now. This, UIHI says, “may suggest with proper messaging and education on the efficacy and safety of vaccine, hesitancy can be addressed.”

That could depend on who’s delivering the message. The greatest difference between the 2 groups, the UIHI says, was that those who were willing to take vaccines trusted government organizations (ie,Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) and their regular doctor. Those unwilling to get vaccinated had the highest trust in Urban Indian health clinics, their regular doctor, and Tribal clinics, respectively. The biggest divide? Almost all of the willing group “mostly” or “completely” trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci and the scientists working on the vaccines. Most of the unwilling group does not.

Factors such as convenience, cost, and advice all entered into the respondents’ decision making. But one of the UIHI’s key recommendations is to continue to draw connections between getting vaccinated and the preservation of Native traditions, cultural pride, and love and respect for family, elders, and the broader Native community. Elders, Native community leaders, and Tribal leaders were among the top ambassadors for getting the message out, the UIHI survey found.

Ultimately, each individual decides who to trust. One of the survey respondents said, “Although the US government should have and could have done so much more for all people living here, if we turn down the vaccine, we not only risk our lives and the lives of others…we undermine all the struggles our tribes have gone through to keep our people safe. Even when the US government has directly worked against our tribal checkpoints and safety efforts. To not get vaccinated, is to say the US government’s failure to protect the people is right, and our tribal efforts, wisdom, and courage is wrong.”

As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the US. Reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse effects (AEs) after receipt of the vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team and Food and Drug Administration in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report early release.

The researchers screened VAERS reports that described suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis and collected information from medical records and outreach to healthcare facilities, providers, and recipients. They identified 108 reports for further review as possible severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, a rare vaccination reaction. Ten cases were determined to be anaphylaxis—or a rate of 2.5 cases per million vaccine doses administered. Nine of the cases were people with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions; 5 had a history of anaphylaxis.

The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes. Eight people had follow-up information available; all had recovered or were discharged. Of the case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed as nonanaphylactic allergic reactions and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Four cases lacked enough information to be determined.

Based on those preliminary findings, it appears anaphylaxis is rare after the Moderna vaccination, but the researchers note that comparisons with other non–COVID-19 vaccines are constrained due to the limited information available this early in the vaccination program. They did cite an analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, also an mRNA vaccine, which estimated an initial rate of 11.1 cases per million doses after the first shot.

The researchers found a “strong female predominance” of anaphylaxis for both vaccines. All 10 anaphylaxis cases reported with the Moderna vaccine were in women. However, during the analytic period, 61% of first doses were given to women, vs 36% to men. Similarly, two thirds of first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered to women, and women were more affected.

Postvaccine COVID-19 Infections

But patients shouldn’t be too hasty to assume that symptoms after the vaccination are vaccine related, researchers at Israel’s Sheba Medical Center warn. The mere availability of a vaccine may lead to a certain laxity of precautions and a consequent rise in COVID-19 cases. “Thus, almost every physical complaint after vaccination poses a true diagnostic dilemma,” they point out, “as to whether an adverse reaction or a new COVID-19 infection is the cause.”

They studied 4,081 healthcare workers given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Of the vaccinated healthcare workers, 22 (0.54%) later had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Thirteen were tested because they had symptoms, usually an influenza-like illness that included fever, chills, cough, headache, myalgia, and sore throat. The median time between the first dose of vaccine and first symptoms was 3.5 days (one HCW had symptoms before immunization).

The vaccine, BNT162b2, is not likely to protect against clinical disease during the first days after receipt of the first dose, the researchers say. Efficacy was 52% a week after the first dose and positive COVID-19 cases were described among vaccinees even early after the second dose.

Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion of reported symptoms, the researchers advise, and avoid dismissing complaints as vaccine related until true infection is ruled out and the vaccine recipient is tested.

As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the US. Reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse effects (AEs) after receipt of the vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team and Food and Drug Administration in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report early release.

The researchers screened VAERS reports that described suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis and collected information from medical records and outreach to healthcare facilities, providers, and recipients. They identified 108 reports for further review as possible severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, a rare vaccination reaction. Ten cases were determined to be anaphylaxis—or a rate of 2.5 cases per million vaccine doses administered. Nine of the cases were people with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions; 5 had a history of anaphylaxis.

The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes. Eight people had follow-up information available; all had recovered or were discharged. Of the case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed as nonanaphylactic allergic reactions and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Four cases lacked enough information to be determined.

Based on those preliminary findings, it appears anaphylaxis is rare after the Moderna vaccination, but the researchers note that comparisons with other non–COVID-19 vaccines are constrained due to the limited information available this early in the vaccination program. They did cite an analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, also an mRNA vaccine, which estimated an initial rate of 11.1 cases per million doses after the first shot.

The researchers found a “strong female predominance” of anaphylaxis for both vaccines. All 10 anaphylaxis cases reported with the Moderna vaccine were in women. However, during the analytic period, 61% of first doses were given to women, vs 36% to men. Similarly, two thirds of first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered to women, and women were more affected.

Postvaccine COVID-19 Infections

But patients shouldn’t be too hasty to assume that symptoms after the vaccination are vaccine related, researchers at Israel’s Sheba Medical Center warn. The mere availability of a vaccine may lead to a certain laxity of precautions and a consequent rise in COVID-19 cases. “Thus, almost every physical complaint after vaccination poses a true diagnostic dilemma,” they point out, “as to whether an adverse reaction or a new COVID-19 infection is the cause.”

They studied 4,081 healthcare workers given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Of the vaccinated healthcare workers, 22 (0.54%) later had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Thirteen were tested because they had symptoms, usually an influenza-like illness that included fever, chills, cough, headache, myalgia, and sore throat. The median time between the first dose of vaccine and first symptoms was 3.5 days (one HCW had symptoms before immunization).

The vaccine, BNT162b2, is not likely to protect against clinical disease during the first days after receipt of the first dose, the researchers say. Efficacy was 52% a week after the first dose and positive COVID-19 cases were described among vaccinees even early after the second dose.

Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion of reported symptoms, the researchers advise, and avoid dismissing complaints as vaccine related until true infection is ruled out and the vaccine recipient is tested.

As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the US. Reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse effects (AEs) after receipt of the vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team and Food and Drug Administration in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report early release.

The researchers screened VAERS reports that described suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis and collected information from medical records and outreach to healthcare facilities, providers, and recipients. They identified 108 reports for further review as possible severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, a rare vaccination reaction. Ten cases were determined to be anaphylaxis—or a rate of 2.5 cases per million vaccine doses administered. Nine of the cases were people with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions; 5 had a history of anaphylaxis.

The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes. Eight people had follow-up information available; all had recovered or were discharged. Of the case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed as nonanaphylactic allergic reactions and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Four cases lacked enough information to be determined.

Based on those preliminary findings, it appears anaphylaxis is rare after the Moderna vaccination, but the researchers note that comparisons with other non–COVID-19 vaccines are constrained due to the limited information available this early in the vaccination program. They did cite an analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, also an mRNA vaccine, which estimated an initial rate of 11.1 cases per million doses after the first shot.

The researchers found a “strong female predominance” of anaphylaxis for both vaccines. All 10 anaphylaxis cases reported with the Moderna vaccine were in women. However, during the analytic period, 61% of first doses were given to women, vs 36% to men. Similarly, two thirds of first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered to women, and women were more affected.

Postvaccine COVID-19 Infections

But patients shouldn’t be too hasty to assume that symptoms after the vaccination are vaccine related, researchers at Israel’s Sheba Medical Center warn. The mere availability of a vaccine may lead to a certain laxity of precautions and a consequent rise in COVID-19 cases. “Thus, almost every physical complaint after vaccination poses a true diagnostic dilemma,” they point out, “as to whether an adverse reaction or a new COVID-19 infection is the cause.”

They studied 4,081 healthcare workers given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Of the vaccinated healthcare workers, 22 (0.54%) later had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Thirteen were tested because they had symptoms, usually an influenza-like illness that included fever, chills, cough, headache, myalgia, and sore throat. The median time between the first dose of vaccine and first symptoms was 3.5 days (one HCW had symptoms before immunization).

The vaccine, BNT162b2, is not likely to protect against clinical disease during the first days after receipt of the first dose, the researchers say. Efficacy was 52% a week after the first dose and positive COVID-19 cases were described among vaccinees even early after the second dose.

Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion of reported symptoms, the researchers advise, and avoid dismissing complaints as vaccine related until true infection is ruled out and the vaccine recipient is tested.

Invasive group A Streptococcus (iGAS) disease has been on the rise among indigenous populations around the world. Researchers from University of Alberta, Alberta Ministry of Health, both in Edmonton, and Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center in Alberta conducted a study to find out more. Between 2003 and 2017, they investigated iGAS cases among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis members in Alberta.

During that time, 669 cases of iGAS were reported. The incidence increased from 10 cases per 100,000 in 2003 to 52 cases per 100,000 in 2017—an incidence rate > 6 times that of non–First Nations populations. The researchers say the disproportionately high rates are seen in other Native American groups compared with the rates in the general population: One study, for instance, found the incidence rate for Alaska Natives was 13.7 cases per 100,000 compared with 3.9 cases per 100,000 for non–Alaska Natives.

What’s driving the higher rates isn’t completely clear, the researchers say. They note that risk factor data in their study “frequently” indicated nonsurgical wounds, addiction abuse, and homelessness. They also cite research that has found skin infections and skin breakdown are common among iGAS patients who were injection drug users or homeless. Diabetes mellitus—rampant among Native Americans—was another risk factor.

The researchers found a “striking difference” in that the First Nations members had more skin and soft tissue infections and, unexpectedly, fewer streptococcal toxic shock syndrome cases than did the non–First Nations groups.

Moreover, skin-to-skin transmission may be more common than respiratory transmission: When they grouped emm types (the bacteria are typed according to a protein encoded by the emm gene) by cluster, they found the bulk of disease among the First Nations population was associated with skin-related infections, not throat-related clusters. This may be a consequence of overcrowded households or inadequate housing, both issues for Native American communities. The researchers say emm59, the most prevalent emm type in the First Nations population in the study, displays a tropism for skin infections. Since 2006, they add, when a large outbreak of emm59 was reported, it has become common throughout western Canada and the US, where it had previously been relatively rare.

Of note, the researchers conclude, substantial emm differences could have potential implications for future vaccine.

Source: Tyrrell GJ, Bell B, Bill L, Fathima S. Increasing incidence of invasive group A Streptococcus Disease in First Nations population, Alberta, Canada, 2003-2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):443-451. doi:doi:10.3201/eid2702.20194

Invasive group A Streptococcus (iGAS) disease has been on the rise among indigenous populations around the world. Researchers from University of Alberta, Alberta Ministry of Health, both in Edmonton, and Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center in Alberta conducted a study to find out more. Between 2003 and 2017, they investigated iGAS cases among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis members in Alberta.

During that time, 669 cases of iGAS were reported. The incidence increased from 10 cases per 100,000 in 2003 to 52 cases per 100,000 in 2017—an incidence rate > 6 times that of non–First Nations populations. The researchers say the disproportionately high rates are seen in other Native American groups compared with the rates in the general population: One study, for instance, found the incidence rate for Alaska Natives was 13.7 cases per 100,000 compared with 3.9 cases per 100,000 for non–Alaska Natives.

What’s driving the higher rates isn’t completely clear, the researchers say. They note that risk factor data in their study “frequently” indicated nonsurgical wounds, addiction abuse, and homelessness. They also cite research that has found skin infections and skin breakdown are common among iGAS patients who were injection drug users or homeless. Diabetes mellitus—rampant among Native Americans—was another risk factor.

The researchers found a “striking difference” in that the First Nations members had more skin and soft tissue infections and, unexpectedly, fewer streptococcal toxic shock syndrome cases than did the non–First Nations groups.

Moreover, skin-to-skin transmission may be more common than respiratory transmission: When they grouped emm types (the bacteria are typed according to a protein encoded by the emm gene) by cluster, they found the bulk of disease among the First Nations population was associated with skin-related infections, not throat-related clusters. This may be a consequence of overcrowded households or inadequate housing, both issues for Native American communities. The researchers say emm59, the most prevalent emm type in the First Nations population in the study, displays a tropism for skin infections. Since 2006, they add, when a large outbreak of emm59 was reported, it has become common throughout western Canada and the US, where it had previously been relatively rare.

Of note, the researchers conclude, substantial emm differences could have potential implications for future vaccine.

Source: Tyrrell GJ, Bell B, Bill L, Fathima S. Increasing incidence of invasive group A Streptococcus Disease in First Nations population, Alberta, Canada, 2003-2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):443-451. doi:doi:10.3201/eid2702.20194

Invasive group A Streptococcus (iGAS) disease has been on the rise among indigenous populations around the world. Researchers from University of Alberta, Alberta Ministry of Health, both in Edmonton, and Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center in Alberta conducted a study to find out more. Between 2003 and 2017, they investigated iGAS cases among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis members in Alberta.

During that time, 669 cases of iGAS were reported. The incidence increased from 10 cases per 100,000 in 2003 to 52 cases per 100,000 in 2017—an incidence rate > 6 times that of non–First Nations populations. The researchers say the disproportionately high rates are seen in other Native American groups compared with the rates in the general population: One study, for instance, found the incidence rate for Alaska Natives was 13.7 cases per 100,000 compared with 3.9 cases per 100,000 for non–Alaska Natives.

What’s driving the higher rates isn’t completely clear, the researchers say. They note that risk factor data in their study “frequently” indicated nonsurgical wounds, addiction abuse, and homelessness. They also cite research that has found skin infections and skin breakdown are common among iGAS patients who were injection drug users or homeless. Diabetes mellitus—rampant among Native Americans—was another risk factor.

The researchers found a “striking difference” in that the First Nations members had more skin and soft tissue infections and, unexpectedly, fewer streptococcal toxic shock syndrome cases than did the non–First Nations groups.

Moreover, skin-to-skin transmission may be more common than respiratory transmission: When they grouped emm types (the bacteria are typed according to a protein encoded by the emm gene) by cluster, they found the bulk of disease among the First Nations population was associated with skin-related infections, not throat-related clusters. This may be a consequence of overcrowded households or inadequate housing, both issues for Native American communities. The researchers say emm59, the most prevalent emm type in the First Nations population in the study, displays a tropism for skin infections. Since 2006, they add, when a large outbreak of emm59 was reported, it has become common throughout western Canada and the US, where it had previously been relatively rare.

Of note, the researchers conclude, substantial emm differences could have potential implications for future vaccine.

Source: Tyrrell GJ, Bell B, Bill L, Fathima S. Increasing incidence of invasive group A Streptococcus Disease in First Nations population, Alberta, Canada, 2003-2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):443-451. doi:doi:10.3201/eid2702.20194

Researchers from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke studying the brains of patients who died from COVID-19, “consistently” found microvascular damage—but no signs of COVID-19 infection. Of the 19 patients in the study, 14 had chronic illnesses, including diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 11 had ben found dead or had died unexpectedly. Of the 16 with available medical histories, one had delirium and the others had respiratory or unknown symptoms. Two had pulmonary embolism.

                Patients with COVID-19 often have neurological problems, such as headaches, delirium, and dizziness. Some have strokes. Several studies have shown that COVID-19 can cause inflammation and blood vessel damage, but the precise mode of action is still unclear. In this study, the researchers used a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner 4 to 10 times more sensitive than most MRI scanners to examine samples of the olfactory bulbs and brainstems from the samples.

                In 9 patients, the MRI scan showed punctate hyperintensities (bright spots representing areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage) that often indicate inflammation. In 10 brains, they found punctate hypointensities (dark spots) that corresponded to congested blood vessels, with surrounding areas of fibrinogen leakage and relatively intact vasculature. Areas of linear hypointensities (dark spots) were interpreted as microhemorrhages.

                Using the scans as a guide, the researchers examined the spots more closely under a microscope. They found that the bright spots contained blood vessels that were thinner than normal and sometimes leaked blood proteins into the brain. This, the researchers say, seemed to trigger an immune reaction. The spots were surrounded by T cells from the blood and the brain’s own immune cells. In contrast, the dark spots contained clotted and leaky blood vessels but no immune response.

                Moreover, although they used several methods for detecting genetic material or proteins from SAS-CoV-2, they found none. It’s possible, the researchers say, that the virus was cleared by the time of death or that viral copy numbers were undetectable by their assays.

                We were completely surprised,” said Avindra Nath, MD, NINDS clinical director. “Originally, we expected to see damage that is caused by a lack of oxygen. Instead, we saw multifocal areas of damage that is usually associated with strokes and neuroinflammatory diseases.”

                In future, Nath says, they plan to study how COVID-19 harms the blood vessels and whether that produces some of the short- and long-term symptoms seen. “We hope these results will help doctors understand the full spectrum of problems patients may suffer so that we can come up with better treatments.”

Researchers from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke studying the brains of patients who died from COVID-19, “consistently” found microvascular damage—but no signs of COVID-19 infection. Of the 19 patients in the study, 14 had chronic illnesses, including diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 11 had ben found dead or had died unexpectedly. Of the 16 with available medical histories, one had delirium and the others had respiratory or unknown symptoms. Two had pulmonary embolism.

                Patients with COVID-19 often have neurological problems, such as headaches, delirium, and dizziness. Some have strokes. Several studies have shown that COVID-19 can cause inflammation and blood vessel damage, but the precise mode of action is still unclear. In this study, the researchers used a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner 4 to 10 times more sensitive than most MRI scanners to examine samples of the olfactory bulbs and brainstems from the samples.

                In 9 patients, the MRI scan showed punctate hyperintensities (bright spots representing areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage) that often indicate inflammation. In 10 brains, they found punctate hypointensities (dark spots) that corresponded to congested blood vessels, with surrounding areas of fibrinogen leakage and relatively intact vasculature. Areas of linear hypointensities (dark spots) were interpreted as microhemorrhages.

                Using the scans as a guide, the researchers examined the spots more closely under a microscope. They found that the bright spots contained blood vessels that were thinner than normal and sometimes leaked blood proteins into the brain. This, the researchers say, seemed to trigger an immune reaction. The spots were surrounded by T cells from the blood and the brain’s own immune cells. In contrast, the dark spots contained clotted and leaky blood vessels but no immune response.

                Moreover, although they used several methods for detecting genetic material or proteins from SAS-CoV-2, they found none. It’s possible, the researchers say, that the virus was cleared by the time of death or that viral copy numbers were undetectable by their assays.

                We were completely surprised,” said Avindra Nath, MD, NINDS clinical director. “Originally, we expected to see damage that is caused by a lack of oxygen. Instead, we saw multifocal areas of damage that is usually associated with strokes and neuroinflammatory diseases.”

                In future, Nath says, they plan to study how COVID-19 harms the blood vessels and whether that produces some of the short- and long-term symptoms seen. “We hope these results will help doctors understand the full spectrum of problems patients may suffer so that we can come up with better treatments.”

Researchers from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke studying the brains of patients who died from COVID-19, “consistently” found microvascular damage—but no signs of COVID-19 infection. Of the 19 patients in the study, 14 had chronic illnesses, including diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 11 had ben found dead or had died unexpectedly. Of the 16 with available medical histories, one had delirium and the others had respiratory or unknown symptoms. Two had pulmonary embolism.

                Patients with COVID-19 often have neurological problems, such as headaches, delirium, and dizziness. Some have strokes. Several studies have shown that COVID-19 can cause inflammation and blood vessel damage, but the precise mode of action is still unclear. In this study, the researchers used a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner 4 to 10 times more sensitive than most MRI scanners to examine samples of the olfactory bulbs and brainstems from the samples.

                In 9 patients, the MRI scan showed punctate hyperintensities (bright spots representing areas of microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage) that often indicate inflammation. In 10 brains, they found punctate hypointensities (dark spots) that corresponded to congested blood vessels, with surrounding areas of fibrinogen leakage and relatively intact vasculature. Areas of linear hypointensities (dark spots) were interpreted as microhemorrhages.

                Using the scans as a guide, the researchers examined the spots more closely under a microscope. They found that the bright spots contained blood vessels that were thinner than normal and sometimes leaked blood proteins into the brain. This, the researchers say, seemed to trigger an immune reaction. The spots were surrounded by T cells from the blood and the brain’s own immune cells. In contrast, the dark spots contained clotted and leaky blood vessels but no immune response.

                Moreover, although they used several methods for detecting genetic material or proteins from SAS-CoV-2, they found none. It’s possible, the researchers say, that the virus was cleared by the time of death or that viral copy numbers were undetectable by their assays.

                We were completely surprised,” said Avindra Nath, MD, NINDS clinical director. “Originally, we expected to see damage that is caused by a lack of oxygen. Instead, we saw multifocal areas of damage that is usually associated with strokes and neuroinflammatory diseases.”

                In future, Nath says, they plan to study how COVID-19 harms the blood vessels and whether that produces some of the short- and long-term symptoms seen. “We hope these results will help doctors understand the full spectrum of problems patients may suffer so that we can come up with better treatments.”

Coinfection with COVID-19 and influenza was reported early in the pandemic. Although both infections on their own can cause severe complications and death, coinfection can double the odds of death when compared with COVID infection alone. Moreover, those odds can be raised by chronic medical conditions and environmental or occupational factors, such as congregate living settings, say physicians who report on the first 2 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and influenza coinfection among US Department of Defense personnel within the US Central Command area of responsibility.

                In the first case, a 56-year-old contractor presented to a Role I clinic with anorexia, fever, chills, and headache, which had begun 3 days before. His initial vital signs were “unremarkable,” and he did not have symptoms of respiratory distress. An antigen test was positive for influenza type A. A COVID-19 test also was positive. He was placed on isolation and treated with oseltamivir, amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and losartan. His condition did not warrant hospitalization. Of 3 close contacts, 1 tested positive and was isolated. Two remained asymptomatic during the 14-day quarantine. Ten days after onset, the patient returned to duty.

                The second patient, a 34-year-old officer in the Army, was initially identified as a close contact of a confirmed COVID-19 case and placed in quarantine. He was asymptomatic but tested positive and was placed in isolation with precautions. As with the first patient, his vital signs were unremarkable. He continued to be asymptomatic, although he reported myalgias 2 days later. Since those are a classic sign of seasonal influenzas, he was tested and proved positive for type B influenza. He, too, was started on oseltamivir. By the end of the first week, he experienced loss of taste and smell, cough, and shortness of breath, but his vital signs remained normal. His symptoms improved through supportive care. All 6 of his close contacts remained asymptomatic. Ten days after his symptoms began, he also returned to duty.

                Influenza-associated deaths among the US military have been relatively few, the authors say, most likely because of the good preexisting health status of the US military, prompt detection with rapid influenza diagnostic tests, several effective antiviral therapeutics, and a “robust, compulsory vaccination program.” Nonetheless, neither patient had received the 2020-2021 influenza vaccine, which underscores the importance of this intervention, the authors say.

                Because both infections present with a wide variety of clinical manifestations and overlapping symptoms, providers should stay alert to the possibility of coinfection, especially among personnel who are higher risk. For instance, as a linguist who interacted daily with host nation partners, the civilian contractor had a high occupational exposure.

                While the authors only discuss 2 cases, a Medical Surveillance Monthly Report editorial comment says their report “nevertheless supports the importance of implementing force health protection (FHP) measures to prevent, detect, and respond to the spread of both of these health threats.” It’s particularly important, the comment notes, in the current context of a drawdown in forces in many deployed locations, as further losses of personnel to illness may degrade the execution of critical missions.

Coinfection with COVID-19 and influenza was reported early in the pandemic. Although both infections on their own can cause severe complications and death, coinfection can double the odds of death when compared with COVID infection alone. Moreover, those odds can be raised by chronic medical conditions and environmental or occupational factors, such as congregate living settings, say physicians who report on the first 2 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and influenza coinfection among US Department of Defense personnel within the US Central Command area of responsibility.

                In the first case, a 56-year-old contractor presented to a Role I clinic with anorexia, fever, chills, and headache, which had begun 3 days before. His initial vital signs were “unremarkable,” and he did not have symptoms of respiratory distress. An antigen test was positive for influenza type A. A COVID-19 test also was positive. He was placed on isolation and treated with oseltamivir, amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and losartan. His condition did not warrant hospitalization. Of 3 close contacts, 1 tested positive and was isolated. Two remained asymptomatic during the 14-day quarantine. Ten days after onset, the patient returned to duty.

                The second patient, a 34-year-old officer in the Army, was initially identified as a close contact of a confirmed COVID-19 case and placed in quarantine. He was asymptomatic but tested positive and was placed in isolation with precautions. As with the first patient, his vital signs were unremarkable. He continued to be asymptomatic, although he reported myalgias 2 days later. Since those are a classic sign of seasonal influenzas, he was tested and proved positive for type B influenza. He, too, was started on oseltamivir. By the end of the first week, he experienced loss of taste and smell, cough, and shortness of breath, but his vital signs remained normal. His symptoms improved through supportive care. All 6 of his close contacts remained asymptomatic. Ten days after his symptoms began, he also returned to duty.

                Influenza-associated deaths among the US military have been relatively few, the authors say, most likely because of the good preexisting health status of the US military, prompt detection with rapid influenza diagnostic tests, several effective antiviral therapeutics, and a “robust, compulsory vaccination program.” Nonetheless, neither patient had received the 2020-2021 influenza vaccine, which underscores the importance of this intervention, the authors say.

                Because both infections present with a wide variety of clinical manifestations and overlapping symptoms, providers should stay alert to the possibility of coinfection, especially among personnel who are higher risk. For instance, as a linguist who interacted daily with host nation partners, the civilian contractor had a high occupational exposure.

                While the authors only discuss 2 cases, a Medical Surveillance Monthly Report editorial comment says their report “nevertheless supports the importance of implementing force health protection (FHP) measures to prevent, detect, and respond to the spread of both of these health threats.” It’s particularly important, the comment notes, in the current context of a drawdown in forces in many deployed locations, as further losses of personnel to illness may degrade the execution of critical missions.

Coinfection with COVID-19 and influenza was reported early in the pandemic. Although both infections on their own can cause severe complications and death, coinfection can double the odds of death when compared with COVID infection alone. Moreover, those odds can be raised by chronic medical conditions and environmental or occupational factors, such as congregate living settings, say physicians who report on the first 2 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and influenza coinfection among US Department of Defense personnel within the US Central Command area of responsibility.

                In the first case, a 56-year-old contractor presented to a Role I clinic with anorexia, fever, chills, and headache, which had begun 3 days before. His initial vital signs were “unremarkable,” and he did not have symptoms of respiratory distress. An antigen test was positive for influenza type A. A COVID-19 test also was positive. He was placed on isolation and treated with oseltamivir, amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and losartan. His condition did not warrant hospitalization. Of 3 close contacts, 1 tested positive and was isolated. Two remained asymptomatic during the 14-day quarantine. Ten days after onset, the patient returned to duty.

                The second patient, a 34-year-old officer in the Army, was initially identified as a close contact of a confirmed COVID-19 case and placed in quarantine. He was asymptomatic but tested positive and was placed in isolation with precautions. As with the first patient, his vital signs were unremarkable. He continued to be asymptomatic, although he reported myalgias 2 days later. Since those are a classic sign of seasonal influenzas, he was tested and proved positive for type B influenza. He, too, was started on oseltamivir. By the end of the first week, he experienced loss of taste and smell, cough, and shortness of breath, but his vital signs remained normal. His symptoms improved through supportive care. All 6 of his close contacts remained asymptomatic. Ten days after his symptoms began, he also returned to duty.

                Influenza-associated deaths among the US military have been relatively few, the authors say, most likely because of the good preexisting health status of the US military, prompt detection with rapid influenza diagnostic tests, several effective antiviral therapeutics, and a “robust, compulsory vaccination program.” Nonetheless, neither patient had received the 2020-2021 influenza vaccine, which underscores the importance of this intervention, the authors say.

                Because both infections present with a wide variety of clinical manifestations and overlapping symptoms, providers should stay alert to the possibility of coinfection, especially among personnel who are higher risk. For instance, as a linguist who interacted daily with host nation partners, the civilian contractor had a high occupational exposure.

                While the authors only discuss 2 cases, a Medical Surveillance Monthly Report editorial comment says their report “nevertheless supports the importance of implementing force health protection (FHP) measures to prevent, detect, and respond to the spread of both of these health threats.” It’s particularly important, the comment notes, in the current context of a drawdown in forces in many deployed locations, as further losses of personnel to illness may degrade the execution of critical missions.

After bariatric surgery, patients have a “much higher” risk of unhealthy alcohol use—even if they had no documented unhealthy drinking at baseline, according to researchers from the Durham Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center in North Carolina.

Based on their findings, the researchers estimate that for every 21 patients who undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), on average one from each group will develop unhealthy alcohol use.

The researchers collected electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,608 veterans who underwent LSG or RYGB at any bariatric center in the VA health system between 2008 and 2016, and compared that group with a nonsurgical control group.

Nearly all the patients screened negative for unhealthy alcohol use in the 2-year baseline period; however, their mean AUDIT-C scores and the probability of unhealthy alcohol use both increased significantly 3 to 8 years after surgery when compared with the control group. Eight years after an LSG, the probability was 3.4% higher (7.9% vs 4.5%). Eight years after an RYGB, the probability was 9.2% vs 4.4%, a difference of 4.8%.

The estimated prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use 8 years after bariatric surgery was higher for patients with unhealthy drinking at baseline (30  40%) than it was for those without baseline unhealthy drinking (5 - 10%). However, the probability was significantly higher for patients who had an RYGB than it was for nonsurgical control patients after 8 years, which might reflect alcohol pharmacokinetics changes, the researchers say.

Not drinking alcohol is the safest option after bariatric surgery, the researchers say, given that blood alcohol concentration peaks at higher levels after the operation. They advise monitoring patients long-term, using the three-item AUDIT-C scale. And, importantly, they advise cautioning patients undergoing bariatric surgery that drinking alcohol can escalate, even if they have had no history of drinking above recommended limits.

After bariatric surgery, patients have a “much higher” risk of unhealthy alcohol use—even if they had no documented unhealthy drinking at baseline, according to researchers from the Durham Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center in North Carolina.

Based on their findings, the researchers estimate that for every 21 patients who undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), on average one from each group will develop unhealthy alcohol use.

The researchers collected electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,608 veterans who underwent LSG or RYGB at any bariatric center in the VA health system between 2008 and 2016, and compared that group with a nonsurgical control group.

Nearly all the patients screened negative for unhealthy alcohol use in the 2-year baseline period; however, their mean AUDIT-C scores and the probability of unhealthy alcohol use both increased significantly 3 to 8 years after surgery when compared with the control group. Eight years after an LSG, the probability was 3.4% higher (7.9% vs 4.5%). Eight years after an RYGB, the probability was 9.2% vs 4.4%, a difference of 4.8%.

The estimated prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use 8 years after bariatric surgery was higher for patients with unhealthy drinking at baseline (30  40%) than it was for those without baseline unhealthy drinking (5 - 10%). However, the probability was significantly higher for patients who had an RYGB than it was for nonsurgical control patients after 8 years, which might reflect alcohol pharmacokinetics changes, the researchers say.

Not drinking alcohol is the safest option after bariatric surgery, the researchers say, given that blood alcohol concentration peaks at higher levels after the operation. They advise monitoring patients long-term, using the three-item AUDIT-C scale. And, importantly, they advise cautioning patients undergoing bariatric surgery that drinking alcohol can escalate, even if they have had no history of drinking above recommended limits.

After bariatric surgery, patients have a “much higher” risk of unhealthy alcohol use—even if they had no documented unhealthy drinking at baseline, according to researchers from the Durham Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center in North Carolina.

Based on their findings, the researchers estimate that for every 21 patients who undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), on average one from each group will develop unhealthy alcohol use.

The researchers collected electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,608 veterans who underwent LSG or RYGB at any bariatric center in the VA health system between 2008 and 2016, and compared that group with a nonsurgical control group.

Nearly all the patients screened negative for unhealthy alcohol use in the 2-year baseline period; however, their mean AUDIT-C scores and the probability of unhealthy alcohol use both increased significantly 3 to 8 years after surgery when compared with the control group. Eight years after an LSG, the probability was 3.4% higher (7.9% vs 4.5%). Eight years after an RYGB, the probability was 9.2% vs 4.4%, a difference of 4.8%.

The estimated prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use 8 years after bariatric surgery was higher for patients with unhealthy drinking at baseline (30  40%) than it was for those without baseline unhealthy drinking (5 - 10%). However, the probability was significantly higher for patients who had an RYGB than it was for nonsurgical control patients after 8 years, which might reflect alcohol pharmacokinetics changes, the researchers say.

Not drinking alcohol is the safest option after bariatric surgery, the researchers say, given that blood alcohol concentration peaks at higher levels after the operation. They advise monitoring patients long-term, using the three-item AUDIT-C scale. And, importantly, they advise cautioning patients undergoing bariatric surgery that drinking alcohol can escalate, even if they have had no history of drinking above recommended limits.