Covid ICYMI

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had returned to their original work 2 years later, a new study shows.

The burden of persistent COVID-19 symptoms appeared to improve over time, but a higher percentage of former patients reported poor health, compared with the general population. This suggests that some patients need more time to completely recover from COVID-19, wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. Previous research has shown that the health effects of COVID-19 last for up to a year, but data from longer-term studies are limited, said Lixue Huang, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, one of the study authors, and colleagues.

Methods and results

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,192 adult patients who were discharged from the hospital after surviving COVID-19 between Jan. 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. The researchers measured the participants’ health outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after their onset of symptoms. A community-based dataset of 3,383 adults with no history of COVID-19 served as controls to measure the recovery of the COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients at the time of hospital discharge was 57 years, and 46% were women. The median follow-up time after the onset of symptoms was 185 days, 349 days, and 685 days for the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year visits, respectively. The researchers measured health outcomes using a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and questionnaires about symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life, returning to work, and health care use since leaving the hospital.

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one symptom decreased from 68% at 6 months to 55% at 2 years (P < .0001). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and muscle weakness, reported by approximately one-third of the patients (31%); sleep problems also were reported by 31% of the patients.

The proportion of individuals with poor results on the 6MWD decreased continuously over time, not only in COVID-19 survivors overall, but also in three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. Of the 494 survivors who reported working before becoming ill, 438 (89%) had returned to their original jobs 2 years later. The most common reasons for not returning to work were decreased physical function, unwillingness to return, and unemployment, the researchers noted.

However, at 2 years, COVID-19 survivors reported more pain and discomfort, as well as more anxiety and depression, compared with the controls (23% vs. 5% and 12% vs. 5%, respectively).

In addition, significantly more survivors who needed high levels of respiratory support while hospitalized had lung diffusion impairment (65%), reduced residual volume (62%), and total lung capacity (39%), compared with matched controls (36%, 20%, and 6%, respectively) at 2 years.

Long-COVID concerns

Approximately half of the survivors had symptoms of long COVID at 2 years. These individuals were more likely to report pain or discomfort or anxiety or depression, as well as mobility problems, compared to survivors without long COVID. Participants with long-COVID symptoms were more than twice as likely to have an outpatient clinic visit (odds ratio, 2.82), and not quite twice as likely to be rehospitalized (OR, 1.64).

“We found that [health-related quality of life], exercise capacity, and mental health continued to improve throughout the 2 years regardless of initial disease severity, but about half still had symptomatic sequelae at 2 years,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

Findings can inform doctor-patient discussions

“We are increasingly recognizing that the health effects of COVID-19 may persist beyond acute illness, therefore this is a timely study to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 with a long follow-up period,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

The findings are consistent with the existing literature, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.  The data from the study “can help clinicians have discussions regarding expected recovery and long-term prognosis for patients with COVID-19,” he noted.

What patients should know is that “studies such as this can help COVID-19 survivors understand and monitor persistent symptoms they may experience, and bring them to the attention of their clinicians,” said Dr. Pal.

However, “As a single-center study with high attrition of subjects during the study period, the findings may not be generalizable,” Dr. Pal emphasized. “Larger-scale studies and patient registries distributed over different geographical areas and time periods will help obtain a better understanding of the nature and prevalence of long COVID,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of formerly hospitalized controls with respiratory infections other than COVID-19 to determine which outcomes are COVID-19 specific, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of data from only patients at a single center, and from the early stages of the pandemic, as well as the use of self-reports for comorbidities and health outcomes, they said.

However, the results represent the longest-known published longitudinal follow-up of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, the researchers emphasized. Study strengths included the large sample size, longitudinal design, and long-term follow-up with non-COVID controls to determine outcomes. The researchers noted their plans to conduct annual follow-ups in the current study population. They added that more research is needed to explore rehabilitation programs to promote recovery for COVID-19 survivors and to reduce the effects of long COVID.

The study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, China Evergrande Group, Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, Ping An Insurance (Group), and New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 5/16/2022.

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had returned to their original work 2 years later, a new study shows.

The burden of persistent COVID-19 symptoms appeared to improve over time, but a higher percentage of former patients reported poor health, compared with the general population. This suggests that some patients need more time to completely recover from COVID-19, wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. Previous research has shown that the health effects of COVID-19 last for up to a year, but data from longer-term studies are limited, said Lixue Huang, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, one of the study authors, and colleagues.

Methods and results

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,192 adult patients who were discharged from the hospital after surviving COVID-19 between Jan. 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. The researchers measured the participants’ health outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after their onset of symptoms. A community-based dataset of 3,383 adults with no history of COVID-19 served as controls to measure the recovery of the COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients at the time of hospital discharge was 57 years, and 46% were women. The median follow-up time after the onset of symptoms was 185 days, 349 days, and 685 days for the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year visits, respectively. The researchers measured health outcomes using a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and questionnaires about symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life, returning to work, and health care use since leaving the hospital.

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one symptom decreased from 68% at 6 months to 55% at 2 years (P < .0001). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and muscle weakness, reported by approximately one-third of the patients (31%); sleep problems also were reported by 31% of the patients.

The proportion of individuals with poor results on the 6MWD decreased continuously over time, not only in COVID-19 survivors overall, but also in three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. Of the 494 survivors who reported working before becoming ill, 438 (89%) had returned to their original jobs 2 years later. The most common reasons for not returning to work were decreased physical function, unwillingness to return, and unemployment, the researchers noted.

However, at 2 years, COVID-19 survivors reported more pain and discomfort, as well as more anxiety and depression, compared with the controls (23% vs. 5% and 12% vs. 5%, respectively).

In addition, significantly more survivors who needed high levels of respiratory support while hospitalized had lung diffusion impairment (65%), reduced residual volume (62%), and total lung capacity (39%), compared with matched controls (36%, 20%, and 6%, respectively) at 2 years.

Long-COVID concerns

Approximately half of the survivors had symptoms of long COVID at 2 years. These individuals were more likely to report pain or discomfort or anxiety or depression, as well as mobility problems, compared to survivors without long COVID. Participants with long-COVID symptoms were more than twice as likely to have an outpatient clinic visit (odds ratio, 2.82), and not quite twice as likely to be rehospitalized (OR, 1.64).

“We found that [health-related quality of life], exercise capacity, and mental health continued to improve throughout the 2 years regardless of initial disease severity, but about half still had symptomatic sequelae at 2 years,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

Findings can inform doctor-patient discussions

“We are increasingly recognizing that the health effects of COVID-19 may persist beyond acute illness, therefore this is a timely study to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 with a long follow-up period,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

The findings are consistent with the existing literature, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.  The data from the study “can help clinicians have discussions regarding expected recovery and long-term prognosis for patients with COVID-19,” he noted.

What patients should know is that “studies such as this can help COVID-19 survivors understand and monitor persistent symptoms they may experience, and bring them to the attention of their clinicians,” said Dr. Pal.

However, “As a single-center study with high attrition of subjects during the study period, the findings may not be generalizable,” Dr. Pal emphasized. “Larger-scale studies and patient registries distributed over different geographical areas and time periods will help obtain a better understanding of the nature and prevalence of long COVID,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of formerly hospitalized controls with respiratory infections other than COVID-19 to determine which outcomes are COVID-19 specific, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of data from only patients at a single center, and from the early stages of the pandemic, as well as the use of self-reports for comorbidities and health outcomes, they said.

However, the results represent the longest-known published longitudinal follow-up of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, the researchers emphasized. Study strengths included the large sample size, longitudinal design, and long-term follow-up with non-COVID controls to determine outcomes. The researchers noted their plans to conduct annual follow-ups in the current study population. They added that more research is needed to explore rehabilitation programs to promote recovery for COVID-19 survivors and to reduce the effects of long COVID.

The study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, China Evergrande Group, Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, Ping An Insurance (Group), and New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 5/16/2022.

Regardless of the severity of their initial illness, 89% of people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had returned to their original work 2 years later, a new study shows.

The burden of persistent COVID-19 symptoms appeared to improve over time, but a higher percentage of former patients reported poor health, compared with the general population. This suggests that some patients need more time to completely recover from COVID-19, wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. Previous research has shown that the health effects of COVID-19 last for up to a year, but data from longer-term studies are limited, said Lixue Huang, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, one of the study authors, and colleagues.

Methods and results

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 1,192 adult patients who were discharged from the hospital after surviving COVID-19 between Jan. 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. The researchers measured the participants’ health outcomes at 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years after their onset of symptoms. A community-based dataset of 3,383 adults with no history of COVID-19 served as controls to measure the recovery of the COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients at the time of hospital discharge was 57 years, and 46% were women. The median follow-up time after the onset of symptoms was 185 days, 349 days, and 685 days for the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year visits, respectively. The researchers measured health outcomes using a 6-min walking distance (6MWD) test, laboratory tests, and questionnaires about symptoms, mental health, health-related quality of life, returning to work, and health care use since leaving the hospital.

Overall, the proportion of COVID-19 survivors with at least one symptom decreased from 68% at 6 months to 55% at 2 years (P < .0001). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue and muscle weakness, reported by approximately one-third of the patients (31%); sleep problems also were reported by 31% of the patients.

The proportion of individuals with poor results on the 6MWD decreased continuously over time, not only in COVID-19 survivors overall, but also in three subgroups of varying initial disease severity. Of the 494 survivors who reported working before becoming ill, 438 (89%) had returned to their original jobs 2 years later. The most common reasons for not returning to work were decreased physical function, unwillingness to return, and unemployment, the researchers noted.

However, at 2 years, COVID-19 survivors reported more pain and discomfort, as well as more anxiety and depression, compared with the controls (23% vs. 5% and 12% vs. 5%, respectively).

In addition, significantly more survivors who needed high levels of respiratory support while hospitalized had lung diffusion impairment (65%), reduced residual volume (62%), and total lung capacity (39%), compared with matched controls (36%, 20%, and 6%, respectively) at 2 years.

Long-COVID concerns

Approximately half of the survivors had symptoms of long COVID at 2 years. These individuals were more likely to report pain or discomfort or anxiety or depression, as well as mobility problems, compared to survivors without long COVID. Participants with long-COVID symptoms were more than twice as likely to have an outpatient clinic visit (odds ratio, 2.82), and not quite twice as likely to be rehospitalized (OR, 1.64).

“We found that [health-related quality of life], exercise capacity, and mental health continued to improve throughout the 2 years regardless of initial disease severity, but about half still had symptomatic sequelae at 2 years,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

Findings can inform doctor-patient discussions

“We are increasingly recognizing that the health effects of COVID-19 may persist beyond acute illness, therefore this is a timely study to assess the long-term impact of COVID-19 with a long follow-up period,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

The findings are consistent with the existing literature, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.  The data from the study “can help clinicians have discussions regarding expected recovery and long-term prognosis for patients with COVID-19,” he noted.

What patients should know is that “studies such as this can help COVID-19 survivors understand and monitor persistent symptoms they may experience, and bring them to the attention of their clinicians,” said Dr. Pal.

However, “As a single-center study with high attrition of subjects during the study period, the findings may not be generalizable,” Dr. Pal emphasized. “Larger-scale studies and patient registries distributed over different geographical areas and time periods will help obtain a better understanding of the nature and prevalence of long COVID,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of formerly hospitalized controls with respiratory infections other than COVID-19 to determine which outcomes are COVID-19 specific, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of data from only patients at a single center, and from the early stages of the pandemic, as well as the use of self-reports for comorbidities and health outcomes, they said.

However, the results represent the longest-known published longitudinal follow-up of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, the researchers emphasized. Study strengths included the large sample size, longitudinal design, and long-term follow-up with non-COVID controls to determine outcomes. The researchers noted their plans to conduct annual follow-ups in the current study population. They added that more research is needed to explore rehabilitation programs to promote recovery for COVID-19 survivors and to reduce the effects of long COVID.

The study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program of China, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, China Evergrande Group, Jack Ma Foundation, Sino Biopharmaceutical, Ping An Insurance (Group), and New Sunshine Charity Foundation. The researchers and Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated on 5/16/2022.

After hospitalization, COVID-19 patients 9 hours per day of sedentary time at 3-6 months after discharge, according to data from 37 individuals.

COVID-19 patients experience a wide range of clinical manifestations, and roughly half of those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 report persisting symptoms both physical and mental up to a year after discharge, Bram van Bakel, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

However, data on physical activity patterns and the impact on recovery after postinfection hospital discharge are limited, he said. Dr. van Bakel and colleagues aimed to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration in COVID-19 patients at 3-6 months after hospital discharge to explore the association with patient characteristics, disease severity and cardiac dysfunction.

“We hypothesized that COVID-19 survivors will demonstrate low volumes of physical activity and a high sedentary time, especially those with a more severe disease course,” such as longer hospital duration and admission to intensive care, cardiac dysfunction, and persistent symptoms at 3-6 months post discharge, he said.

Dr. van Bakel and colleagues enrolled 37 adult patients in a cross-sectional cohort study. They objectively assessed physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration for 24 hrs/day during 8 subsequent days in COVID-19 survivors at 3-6 months post hospitalization. The average age of the patients was 60 years, 78% were male, and the average assessment time was 125 days after hospital discharge.

The researchers compared activity patterns based on patient and disease characteristics, cardiac biomarker release during hospitalization, abnormal transthoracic echocardiogram regarding left and right ventricular function and volumes at 3-6 months of follow-up, and the persistence of symptoms after discharge.

Overall, patients spent a median of 4.2 hours per day in light-intensity physical activity, and 1 hour per day in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The overall median time spent sitting was 9.8 hours per day; this was accumulated in approximately 6 prolonged sitting periods of 30 minutes or more and 41.1 short sitting periods of less than 30 minutes.

The median sleep duration was 9.8 hours per day; sleep duration was significantly higher in women, compared with men (9.2 vs. 8.5 hours/day; P = .03), and in patients with persistent symptoms, compared with those without persistent symptoms (9.1 hrs/day vs. 8.3 hrs/day; P = .02). No other differences in activity or sitting patterns appeared among subgroups. Sedentary time of 10 hours or more per day overall puts individuals at increased risk for detrimental health effects, Dr. van Bakel said.

The study findings were limited by the small sample and cross-sectional design, he noted.

However, the results suggest that COVID-19 patients spent most of their time sedentary within the first 3-6 months after hospital discharge. The similar activity patterns across subgroups support a uniform approach to rehabilitation for these patients to target persisting symptoms and prevent long-term health consequences, said Dr. van Bakel. Further studies are warranted in a larger cohort with a prospective design and longitudinal follow-up.

The current study “highlights the need for ongoing rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization to restore premorbid function and endurance,” Alba Miranda Azola, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“The findings regarding inactivity are not surprising,” said Dr. Azola. “Immobility during hospitalization results in muscle atrophy and marked decreased endurance. The need for prolonged use of sedation and paralytics during intensive care stays of severe COVID-19 patients is associated with critical illness myopathy. Also, many patients continue to experience hypoxia and dyspnea on exertion for several months after leaving the hospital. The functional impairments and limited activity tolerance often preclude patients from engaging on outpatient rehabilitation programs.

“I do think it surprising that the level of inactivity observed was independent of disease severity and patient factors, but it definitely speaks to the importance of establishing post hospitalization follow-up care that focuses on restoring function and mobility,” Dr. Azola noted.

The study findings may have long-term clinical implications, as COVID-19 survivors who experience functional decline that limits activity and who continue to lead a sedentary lifestyle may be at increased risk for health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Azola said. 

Rigorous research is needed to study the functional and health impact of rehabilitation interventions during and after hospitalization, she emphasized. “Additionally, studies are needed on innovative rehabilitation interventions that improve accessibility to services to patients.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose.

After hospitalization, COVID-19 patients 9 hours per day of sedentary time at 3-6 months after discharge, according to data from 37 individuals.

COVID-19 patients experience a wide range of clinical manifestations, and roughly half of those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 report persisting symptoms both physical and mental up to a year after discharge, Bram van Bakel, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

However, data on physical activity patterns and the impact on recovery after postinfection hospital discharge are limited, he said. Dr. van Bakel and colleagues aimed to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration in COVID-19 patients at 3-6 months after hospital discharge to explore the association with patient characteristics, disease severity and cardiac dysfunction.

“We hypothesized that COVID-19 survivors will demonstrate low volumes of physical activity and a high sedentary time, especially those with a more severe disease course,” such as longer hospital duration and admission to intensive care, cardiac dysfunction, and persistent symptoms at 3-6 months post discharge, he said.

Dr. van Bakel and colleagues enrolled 37 adult patients in a cross-sectional cohort study. They objectively assessed physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration for 24 hrs/day during 8 subsequent days in COVID-19 survivors at 3-6 months post hospitalization. The average age of the patients was 60 years, 78% were male, and the average assessment time was 125 days after hospital discharge.

The researchers compared activity patterns based on patient and disease characteristics, cardiac biomarker release during hospitalization, abnormal transthoracic echocardiogram regarding left and right ventricular function and volumes at 3-6 months of follow-up, and the persistence of symptoms after discharge.

Overall, patients spent a median of 4.2 hours per day in light-intensity physical activity, and 1 hour per day in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The overall median time spent sitting was 9.8 hours per day; this was accumulated in approximately 6 prolonged sitting periods of 30 minutes or more and 41.1 short sitting periods of less than 30 minutes.

The median sleep duration was 9.8 hours per day; sleep duration was significantly higher in women, compared with men (9.2 vs. 8.5 hours/day; P = .03), and in patients with persistent symptoms, compared with those without persistent symptoms (9.1 hrs/day vs. 8.3 hrs/day; P = .02). No other differences in activity or sitting patterns appeared among subgroups. Sedentary time of 10 hours or more per day overall puts individuals at increased risk for detrimental health effects, Dr. van Bakel said.

The study findings were limited by the small sample and cross-sectional design, he noted.

However, the results suggest that COVID-19 patients spent most of their time sedentary within the first 3-6 months after hospital discharge. The similar activity patterns across subgroups support a uniform approach to rehabilitation for these patients to target persisting symptoms and prevent long-term health consequences, said Dr. van Bakel. Further studies are warranted in a larger cohort with a prospective design and longitudinal follow-up.

The current study “highlights the need for ongoing rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization to restore premorbid function and endurance,” Alba Miranda Azola, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“The findings regarding inactivity are not surprising,” said Dr. Azola. “Immobility during hospitalization results in muscle atrophy and marked decreased endurance. The need for prolonged use of sedation and paralytics during intensive care stays of severe COVID-19 patients is associated with critical illness myopathy. Also, many patients continue to experience hypoxia and dyspnea on exertion for several months after leaving the hospital. The functional impairments and limited activity tolerance often preclude patients from engaging on outpatient rehabilitation programs.

“I do think it surprising that the level of inactivity observed was independent of disease severity and patient factors, but it definitely speaks to the importance of establishing post hospitalization follow-up care that focuses on restoring function and mobility,” Dr. Azola noted.

The study findings may have long-term clinical implications, as COVID-19 survivors who experience functional decline that limits activity and who continue to lead a sedentary lifestyle may be at increased risk for health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Azola said. 

Rigorous research is needed to study the functional and health impact of rehabilitation interventions during and after hospitalization, she emphasized. “Additionally, studies are needed on innovative rehabilitation interventions that improve accessibility to services to patients.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose.

After hospitalization, COVID-19 patients 9 hours per day of sedentary time at 3-6 months after discharge, according to data from 37 individuals.

COVID-19 patients experience a wide range of clinical manifestations, and roughly half of those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 report persisting symptoms both physical and mental up to a year after discharge, Bram van Bakel, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

However, data on physical activity patterns and the impact on recovery after postinfection hospital discharge are limited, he said. Dr. van Bakel and colleagues aimed to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration in COVID-19 patients at 3-6 months after hospital discharge to explore the association with patient characteristics, disease severity and cardiac dysfunction.

“We hypothesized that COVID-19 survivors will demonstrate low volumes of physical activity and a high sedentary time, especially those with a more severe disease course,” such as longer hospital duration and admission to intensive care, cardiac dysfunction, and persistent symptoms at 3-6 months post discharge, he said.

Dr. van Bakel and colleagues enrolled 37 adult patients in a cross-sectional cohort study. They objectively assessed physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration for 24 hrs/day during 8 subsequent days in COVID-19 survivors at 3-6 months post hospitalization. The average age of the patients was 60 years, 78% were male, and the average assessment time was 125 days after hospital discharge.

The researchers compared activity patterns based on patient and disease characteristics, cardiac biomarker release during hospitalization, abnormal transthoracic echocardiogram regarding left and right ventricular function and volumes at 3-6 months of follow-up, and the persistence of symptoms after discharge.

Overall, patients spent a median of 4.2 hours per day in light-intensity physical activity, and 1 hour per day in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The overall median time spent sitting was 9.8 hours per day; this was accumulated in approximately 6 prolonged sitting periods of 30 minutes or more and 41.1 short sitting periods of less than 30 minutes.

The median sleep duration was 9.8 hours per day; sleep duration was significantly higher in women, compared with men (9.2 vs. 8.5 hours/day; P = .03), and in patients with persistent symptoms, compared with those without persistent symptoms (9.1 hrs/day vs. 8.3 hrs/day; P = .02). No other differences in activity or sitting patterns appeared among subgroups. Sedentary time of 10 hours or more per day overall puts individuals at increased risk for detrimental health effects, Dr. van Bakel said.

The study findings were limited by the small sample and cross-sectional design, he noted.

However, the results suggest that COVID-19 patients spent most of their time sedentary within the first 3-6 months after hospital discharge. The similar activity patterns across subgroups support a uniform approach to rehabilitation for these patients to target persisting symptoms and prevent long-term health consequences, said Dr. van Bakel. Further studies are warranted in a larger cohort with a prospective design and longitudinal follow-up.

The current study “highlights the need for ongoing rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization to restore premorbid function and endurance,” Alba Miranda Azola, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“The findings regarding inactivity are not surprising,” said Dr. Azola. “Immobility during hospitalization results in muscle atrophy and marked decreased endurance. The need for prolonged use of sedation and paralytics during intensive care stays of severe COVID-19 patients is associated with critical illness myopathy. Also, many patients continue to experience hypoxia and dyspnea on exertion for several months after leaving the hospital. The functional impairments and limited activity tolerance often preclude patients from engaging on outpatient rehabilitation programs.

“I do think it surprising that the level of inactivity observed was independent of disease severity and patient factors, but it definitely speaks to the importance of establishing post hospitalization follow-up care that focuses on restoring function and mobility,” Dr. Azola noted.

The study findings may have long-term clinical implications, as COVID-19 survivors who experience functional decline that limits activity and who continue to lead a sedentary lifestyle may be at increased risk for health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Azola said. 

Rigorous research is needed to study the functional and health impact of rehabilitation interventions during and after hospitalization, she emphasized. “Additionally, studies are needed on innovative rehabilitation interventions that improve accessibility to services to patients.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on May 10 that it is taking several steps to improve the supply of baby formula in the United States.

The nationwide formula shortage has grown worse in recent weeks due to supply chain issues and a recall of certain Abbott Nutrition products, including major labels such as Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.

“We recognize that many consumers have been unable to access infant formula and critical medical foods they are accustomed to using and are frustrated by their inability to do so,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

“We are doing everything in our power to ensure there is adequate product available where and when they need it,” he said.

About three-quarters of babies are fed formula for the first 6 months of their lives as a substitute for human milk, Axios reported.

In mid-February, the FDA warned consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula products from Abbott’s facility in Sturgis, Mich. Since then, the FDA has been working with Abbott and other manufacturers to increase the supply in the U.S. market.

“In fact, other infant formula manufacturers are meeting or exceeding capacity levels to meet current demand,” the FDA said in the statement. “Notably, more infant formula was purchased in the month of April than in the month prior to the recall.”

The FDA released a list of steps the agency is taking to increase supply, such as meeting with major infant formula makers to increase output and prioritize product lines in high demand, particularly specialty formulas for infants with allergies or specific diet needs.

But other manufacturers have struggled to quickly increase production because their operations tend to focus on a steady level of supply, according to The New York Times.

“Some industries are very good at ramping up and ramping down,” Rudi Leuschner, PhD, an associate professor of supply chain management at Rutgers Business School, Newark, N.J., told the newspaper.

“You flip a switch and they can produce 10 times as much,” he said. “Baby formula is not that type of a product.”

The FDA is also keeping an eye on the infant formula shortage by using the agency’s 21 Forward food supply chain continuity system. The system was developed during the pandemic to provide a full understanding of how COVID-19 is impacting food supply chains, the FDA said.

The FDA is compiling data on trends for in-stock rates at national and regional levels to understand where infant formula is available and where it should go.

Products are also being brought in from other countries, the FDA said. The agency is trying to speed up the process to get more formula into the U.S. and move it more quickly around the country.

For babies on a special diet, the FDA has decided to release some Abbott products that have been on hold at the Sturgis facility to those who need an urgent supply of metabolic formulas, on a case-by-case basis.

“In these circumstances, the benefit of allowing caregivers, in consultation with their health care providers, to access these products may outweigh the potential risk of bacterial infection,” the FDA said in the statement.

The FDA continues to advise against making homemade infant formulas and recommends talking to the child’s health care provider for recommendations on changing feeding practices or switching to other formulas, if necessary.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on May 10 that it is taking several steps to improve the supply of baby formula in the United States.

The nationwide formula shortage has grown worse in recent weeks due to supply chain issues and a recall of certain Abbott Nutrition products, including major labels such as Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.

“We recognize that many consumers have been unable to access infant formula and critical medical foods they are accustomed to using and are frustrated by their inability to do so,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

“We are doing everything in our power to ensure there is adequate product available where and when they need it,” he said.

About three-quarters of babies are fed formula for the first 6 months of their lives as a substitute for human milk, Axios reported.

In mid-February, the FDA warned consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula products from Abbott’s facility in Sturgis, Mich. Since then, the FDA has been working with Abbott and other manufacturers to increase the supply in the U.S. market.

“In fact, other infant formula manufacturers are meeting or exceeding capacity levels to meet current demand,” the FDA said in the statement. “Notably, more infant formula was purchased in the month of April than in the month prior to the recall.”

The FDA released a list of steps the agency is taking to increase supply, such as meeting with major infant formula makers to increase output and prioritize product lines in high demand, particularly specialty formulas for infants with allergies or specific diet needs.

But other manufacturers have struggled to quickly increase production because their operations tend to focus on a steady level of supply, according to The New York Times.

“Some industries are very good at ramping up and ramping down,” Rudi Leuschner, PhD, an associate professor of supply chain management at Rutgers Business School, Newark, N.J., told the newspaper.

“You flip a switch and they can produce 10 times as much,” he said. “Baby formula is not that type of a product.”

The FDA is also keeping an eye on the infant formula shortage by using the agency’s 21 Forward food supply chain continuity system. The system was developed during the pandemic to provide a full understanding of how COVID-19 is impacting food supply chains, the FDA said.

The FDA is compiling data on trends for in-stock rates at national and regional levels to understand where infant formula is available and where it should go.

Products are also being brought in from other countries, the FDA said. The agency is trying to speed up the process to get more formula into the U.S. and move it more quickly around the country.

For babies on a special diet, the FDA has decided to release some Abbott products that have been on hold at the Sturgis facility to those who need an urgent supply of metabolic formulas, on a case-by-case basis.

“In these circumstances, the benefit of allowing caregivers, in consultation with their health care providers, to access these products may outweigh the potential risk of bacterial infection,” the FDA said in the statement.

The FDA continues to advise against making homemade infant formulas and recommends talking to the child’s health care provider for recommendations on changing feeding practices or switching to other formulas, if necessary.

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

The Food and Drug Administration announced on May 10 that it is taking several steps to improve the supply of baby formula in the United States.

The nationwide formula shortage has grown worse in recent weeks due to supply chain issues and a recall of certain Abbott Nutrition products, including major labels such as Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.

“We recognize that many consumers have been unable to access infant formula and critical medical foods they are accustomed to using and are frustrated by their inability to do so,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

“We are doing everything in our power to ensure there is adequate product available where and when they need it,” he said.

About three-quarters of babies are fed formula for the first 6 months of their lives as a substitute for human milk, Axios reported.

In mid-February, the FDA warned consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula products from Abbott’s facility in Sturgis, Mich. Since then, the FDA has been working with Abbott and other manufacturers to increase the supply in the U.S. market.

“In fact, other infant formula manufacturers are meeting or exceeding capacity levels to meet current demand,” the FDA said in the statement. “Notably, more infant formula was purchased in the month of April than in the month prior to the recall.”

The FDA released a list of steps the agency is taking to increase supply, such as meeting with major infant formula makers to increase output and prioritize product lines in high demand, particularly specialty formulas for infants with allergies or specific diet needs.

But other manufacturers have struggled to quickly increase production because their operations tend to focus on a steady level of supply, according to The New York Times.

“Some industries are very good at ramping up and ramping down,” Rudi Leuschner, PhD, an associate professor of supply chain management at Rutgers Business School, Newark, N.J., told the newspaper.

“You flip a switch and they can produce 10 times as much,” he said. “Baby formula is not that type of a product.”

The FDA is also keeping an eye on the infant formula shortage by using the agency’s 21 Forward food supply chain continuity system. The system was developed during the pandemic to provide a full understanding of how COVID-19 is impacting food supply chains, the FDA said.

The FDA is compiling data on trends for in-stock rates at national and regional levels to understand where infant formula is available and where it should go.

Products are also being brought in from other countries, the FDA said. The agency is trying to speed up the process to get more formula into the U.S. and move it more quickly around the country.

For babies on a special diet, the FDA has decided to release some Abbott products that have been on hold at the Sturgis facility to those who need an urgent supply of metabolic formulas, on a case-by-case basis.

“In these circumstances, the benefit of allowing caregivers, in consultation with their health care providers, to access these products may outweigh the potential risk of bacterial infection,” the FDA said in the statement.

The FDA continues to advise against making homemade infant formulas and recommends talking to the child’s health care provider for recommendations on changing feeding practices or switching to other formulas, if necessary.

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

New data present further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection can settle in the gastrointestinal tract and that it can persist long after the infection has cleared the lungs.

Infection of the GI tract may figure prominently in long COVID, the study authors suggested.

Led by Aravind Natarajan, PhD, with the departments of genetics and medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, they analyzed fecal RNA shedding up to 10 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis in 673 stool samples from 113 patients with mild to moderate disease.

They found that, in the week after diagnosis, COVID RNA remnants were present in the stool of approximately half (49.2%) of the patients. Seven months later, about 4% of them shed fecal viral RNA.

The authors noted that there was no ongoing SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory samples of patients at the 4-month mark.

Using self-reported symptoms regularly collected by questionnaire, they also found a correlation of long-term fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

The findings were published online in Med.
 

Implications of long-term viral shedding

Previous studies have found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory and fecal samples and have documented viral replication in lung and intestinal tissue. But before the current study, little had been known about long-term shedding, especially in those who have mild COVID. Most studies of viral shedding have been with severe COVID cases.

The authors noted that most studies of this kind are cross-sectional. The few other longitudinal studies have focused on early time points just after diagnosis.

Senior author Ami S. Bhatt, MD, associate professor in the departments of medicine and hematology at Stanford University, said in an interview that, though the viral genetic material in the feces lingers, on the basis of available evidence, it is highly unlikely to be contagious in most cases.

She said that understanding the dynamics of fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will help interpret wastewater-based studies that are trying to determine population prevalence of the virus.

“While we don’t know the exact clinical importance of the longer-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with COVID-19, some have speculated that those who have long-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 may have ongoing infections that might benefit from treatment,” she said.

“Our data support the idea that the long-term GI-related symptoms in some people might be the consequence of an ongoing infection in the GI tract, even after the respiratory infection has cleared,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“Alternatively, the presence of ongoing viral genetic material in the gut might be a trigger for the immune system to continually be active against the virus, and our immune system reaction may be the reason for long COVID–type symptoms,” she added. “This area is ripe for additional studies.”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues will continue studying viral shedding in fecal samples as part of the nationwide RECOVER Initiative.

When reached for comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview that previous studies have indicated that the virus may be detected in the stool for a month or more and for about 2 weeks on average. Whether the virus is infectious has been in question.

But it’s not so much that the virus is infectious in the GI tract and causing symptoms, he said. Rather, there are biomic changes related to COVID, including a loss of diversity in the gut bacteria, which disrupts the balance.

“This may actually in some way predispose some patients to impaired clearance of their symptoms,” Dr. Johnson explained. “There seems to be a growing recognition that this entity called long-haul COVID may be related to specific bacterial disruptions, and the more rapidly you can resolve these disruptions, the less likely you are to continue with long-haul symptoms.”

He said that, among people who have mild COVID, the virus typically clears and gut bacteria return to normal. With severe or persistent illness, gut dysbiosis persists, he said.

“People need to be aware that the GI tract is involved in a sizable percent of patients with COVID,” Dr. Johnson said. “The GI-tract testing may reflect that the virus is there, but persistence of the detectable test positivity is very unlikely to reflect active virus.”

The authors noted that they collected only six samples from the participants over the 10-month study period.

“Follow-up studies with more frequent sampling, especially in the first 2 months after diagnosis, may help build a more nuanced model of decline of fecal viral RNA concentration over time,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a Stanford ChemH-IMA grant, fellowships from the AACR and the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Johnson reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Johnson is a regular contributor to this news organization.

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

New data present further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection can settle in the gastrointestinal tract and that it can persist long after the infection has cleared the lungs.

Infection of the GI tract may figure prominently in long COVID, the study authors suggested.

Led by Aravind Natarajan, PhD, with the departments of genetics and medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, they analyzed fecal RNA shedding up to 10 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis in 673 stool samples from 113 patients with mild to moderate disease.

They found that, in the week after diagnosis, COVID RNA remnants were present in the stool of approximately half (49.2%) of the patients. Seven months later, about 4% of them shed fecal viral RNA.

The authors noted that there was no ongoing SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory samples of patients at the 4-month mark.

Using self-reported symptoms regularly collected by questionnaire, they also found a correlation of long-term fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

The findings were published online in Med.
 

Implications of long-term viral shedding

Previous studies have found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory and fecal samples and have documented viral replication in lung and intestinal tissue. But before the current study, little had been known about long-term shedding, especially in those who have mild COVID. Most studies of viral shedding have been with severe COVID cases.

The authors noted that most studies of this kind are cross-sectional. The few other longitudinal studies have focused on early time points just after diagnosis.

Senior author Ami S. Bhatt, MD, associate professor in the departments of medicine and hematology at Stanford University, said in an interview that, though the viral genetic material in the feces lingers, on the basis of available evidence, it is highly unlikely to be contagious in most cases.

She said that understanding the dynamics of fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will help interpret wastewater-based studies that are trying to determine population prevalence of the virus.

“While we don’t know the exact clinical importance of the longer-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with COVID-19, some have speculated that those who have long-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 may have ongoing infections that might benefit from treatment,” she said.

“Our data support the idea that the long-term GI-related symptoms in some people might be the consequence of an ongoing infection in the GI tract, even after the respiratory infection has cleared,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“Alternatively, the presence of ongoing viral genetic material in the gut might be a trigger for the immune system to continually be active against the virus, and our immune system reaction may be the reason for long COVID–type symptoms,” she added. “This area is ripe for additional studies.”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues will continue studying viral shedding in fecal samples as part of the nationwide RECOVER Initiative.

When reached for comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview that previous studies have indicated that the virus may be detected in the stool for a month or more and for about 2 weeks on average. Whether the virus is infectious has been in question.

But it’s not so much that the virus is infectious in the GI tract and causing symptoms, he said. Rather, there are biomic changes related to COVID, including a loss of diversity in the gut bacteria, which disrupts the balance.

“This may actually in some way predispose some patients to impaired clearance of their symptoms,” Dr. Johnson explained. “There seems to be a growing recognition that this entity called long-haul COVID may be related to specific bacterial disruptions, and the more rapidly you can resolve these disruptions, the less likely you are to continue with long-haul symptoms.”

He said that, among people who have mild COVID, the virus typically clears and gut bacteria return to normal. With severe or persistent illness, gut dysbiosis persists, he said.

“People need to be aware that the GI tract is involved in a sizable percent of patients with COVID,” Dr. Johnson said. “The GI-tract testing may reflect that the virus is there, but persistence of the detectable test positivity is very unlikely to reflect active virus.”

The authors noted that they collected only six samples from the participants over the 10-month study period.

“Follow-up studies with more frequent sampling, especially in the first 2 months after diagnosis, may help build a more nuanced model of decline of fecal viral RNA concentration over time,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a Stanford ChemH-IMA grant, fellowships from the AACR and the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Johnson reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Johnson is a regular contributor to this news organization.

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

New data present further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection can settle in the gastrointestinal tract and that it can persist long after the infection has cleared the lungs.

Infection of the GI tract may figure prominently in long COVID, the study authors suggested.

Led by Aravind Natarajan, PhD, with the departments of genetics and medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, they analyzed fecal RNA shedding up to 10 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis in 673 stool samples from 113 patients with mild to moderate disease.

They found that, in the week after diagnosis, COVID RNA remnants were present in the stool of approximately half (49.2%) of the patients. Seven months later, about 4% of them shed fecal viral RNA.

The authors noted that there was no ongoing SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory samples of patients at the 4-month mark.

Using self-reported symptoms regularly collected by questionnaire, they also found a correlation of long-term fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

The findings were published online in Med.
 

Implications of long-term viral shedding

Previous studies have found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory and fecal samples and have documented viral replication in lung and intestinal tissue. But before the current study, little had been known about long-term shedding, especially in those who have mild COVID. Most studies of viral shedding have been with severe COVID cases.

The authors noted that most studies of this kind are cross-sectional. The few other longitudinal studies have focused on early time points just after diagnosis.

Senior author Ami S. Bhatt, MD, associate professor in the departments of medicine and hematology at Stanford University, said in an interview that, though the viral genetic material in the feces lingers, on the basis of available evidence, it is highly unlikely to be contagious in most cases.

She said that understanding the dynamics of fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will help interpret wastewater-based studies that are trying to determine population prevalence of the virus.

“While we don’t know the exact clinical importance of the longer-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with COVID-19, some have speculated that those who have long-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 may have ongoing infections that might benefit from treatment,” she said.

“Our data support the idea that the long-term GI-related symptoms in some people might be the consequence of an ongoing infection in the GI tract, even after the respiratory infection has cleared,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“Alternatively, the presence of ongoing viral genetic material in the gut might be a trigger for the immune system to continually be active against the virus, and our immune system reaction may be the reason for long COVID–type symptoms,” she added. “This area is ripe for additional studies.”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues will continue studying viral shedding in fecal samples as part of the nationwide RECOVER Initiative.

When reached for comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview that previous studies have indicated that the virus may be detected in the stool for a month or more and for about 2 weeks on average. Whether the virus is infectious has been in question.

But it’s not so much that the virus is infectious in the GI tract and causing symptoms, he said. Rather, there are biomic changes related to COVID, including a loss of diversity in the gut bacteria, which disrupts the balance.

“This may actually in some way predispose some patients to impaired clearance of their symptoms,” Dr. Johnson explained. “There seems to be a growing recognition that this entity called long-haul COVID may be related to specific bacterial disruptions, and the more rapidly you can resolve these disruptions, the less likely you are to continue with long-haul symptoms.”

He said that, among people who have mild COVID, the virus typically clears and gut bacteria return to normal. With severe or persistent illness, gut dysbiosis persists, he said.

“People need to be aware that the GI tract is involved in a sizable percent of patients with COVID,” Dr. Johnson said. “The GI-tract testing may reflect that the virus is there, but persistence of the detectable test positivity is very unlikely to reflect active virus.”

The authors noted that they collected only six samples from the participants over the 10-month study period.

“Follow-up studies with more frequent sampling, especially in the first 2 months after diagnosis, may help build a more nuanced model of decline of fecal viral RNA concentration over time,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a Stanford ChemH-IMA grant, fellowships from the AACR and the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Johnson reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Johnson is a regular contributor to this news organization.

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

New data present further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection can settle in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and that it can persist long after the infection has cleared the lungs.

Infection of the GI tract may figure prominently in long COVID, the study authors suggest.

Led by Aravind Natarajan, PhD, with the departments of genetics and medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, they analyzed fecal RNA shedding up to 10 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis in 673 stool samples from 113 patients with mild to moderate disease.

They found that in the week after diagnosis, COVID RNA remnants were present in the stool of approximately half (49.2%) of the patients. Seven months later, about 4% of them shed fecal viral RNA.

The authors note that there was no ongoing SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory samples of patients at the 4-month mark.

Using self-reported symptoms regularly collected by questionnaire, they also found a correlation of long-term fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

The findings were published online in Med.
 

Implications of long-term viral shedding

Previous studies have found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory and fecal samples and have documented viral replication in lung and intestinal tissue.

But before the current study, little had been known about long-term shedding, especially in those who have mild COVID. Most studies of viral shedding have been with severe COVID cases.

The authors note that most studies of this kind are cross-sectional. The few other longitudinal studies have focused on early time points just after diagnosis.

Senior author Ami S. Bhatt, MD, associate professor in the departments of medicine and hematology at Stanford, told this news organization that though the viral genetic material in the feces lingers, on the basis of available evidence, it is highly unlikely to be contagious in most cases.

She said that understanding the dynamics of fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will help interpret wastewater-based studies that are trying to determine population prevalence of the virus.

“While we don’t know the exact clinical importance of the longer-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with COVID-19, some have speculated that those who have long-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 may have ongoing infections that might benefit from treatment,” she said.

“Our data support the idea that the long-term GI-related symptoms in some people might be the consequence of an ongoing infection in the GI tract, even after the respiratory infection has cleared,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“Alternatively, the presence of ongoing viral genetic material in the gut might be a trigger for the immune system to continually be active against the virus, and our immune system reaction may be the reason for long-COVID type symptoms,” she added. “This area is ripe for additional studies.”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues will continue studying viral shedding in fecal samples as part of the nationwide RECOVER Initiative.

When reached for comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview that previous studies have indicated that the virus may be detected in the stool for a month or more and for about 2 weeks on average. Whether the virus is infectious has been in question.

But it’s not so much that the virus is infectious in the GI tract and causing symptoms, he said. Rather, there are biomic changes related to COVID, including a loss of diversity in the gut bacteria, which disrupts the balance.

“This may actually in some way predispose some patients to impaired clearance of their symptoms,” Dr. Johnson explained. “There seems to be a growing recognition that this entity called long-haul COVID may be related to specific bacterial disruptions, and the more rapidly you can resolve these disruptions, the less likely you are to continue with long-haul symptoms.”

He said that among people who have mild COVID, the virus typically clears and gut bacteria return to normal. With severe or persistent illness, gut dysbiosis persists, he said.

“People need to be aware that the GI tract is involved in a sizable percent of patients with COVID,” Dr. Johnson said. “The GI-tract testing may reflect that the virus is there, but persistence of the detectable test positivity is very unlikely to reflect active virus.”

The authors note in this study that they collected only six samples from the participants over the 10-month period.

“Follow-up studies with more frequent sampling, especially in the first 2 months after diagnosis, may help build a more nuanced model of decline of fecal viral RNA concentration over time,” they write.

The study was supported by a Stanford ChemH-IMA grant, fellowships from the AACR and the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Johnson is a regular contributor to Medscape.

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

New data present further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection can settle in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and that it can persist long after the infection has cleared the lungs.

Infection of the GI tract may figure prominently in long COVID, the study authors suggest.

Led by Aravind Natarajan, PhD, with the departments of genetics and medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, they analyzed fecal RNA shedding up to 10 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis in 673 stool samples from 113 patients with mild to moderate disease.

They found that in the week after diagnosis, COVID RNA remnants were present in the stool of approximately half (49.2%) of the patients. Seven months later, about 4% of them shed fecal viral RNA.

The authors note that there was no ongoing SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory samples of patients at the 4-month mark.

Using self-reported symptoms regularly collected by questionnaire, they also found a correlation of long-term fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

The findings were published online in Med.
 

Implications of long-term viral shedding

Previous studies have found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory and fecal samples and have documented viral replication in lung and intestinal tissue.

But before the current study, little had been known about long-term shedding, especially in those who have mild COVID. Most studies of viral shedding have been with severe COVID cases.

The authors note that most studies of this kind are cross-sectional. The few other longitudinal studies have focused on early time points just after diagnosis.

Senior author Ami S. Bhatt, MD, associate professor in the departments of medicine and hematology at Stanford, told this news organization that though the viral genetic material in the feces lingers, on the basis of available evidence, it is highly unlikely to be contagious in most cases.

She said that understanding the dynamics of fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will help interpret wastewater-based studies that are trying to determine population prevalence of the virus.

“While we don’t know the exact clinical importance of the longer-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with COVID-19, some have speculated that those who have long-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 may have ongoing infections that might benefit from treatment,” she said.

“Our data support the idea that the long-term GI-related symptoms in some people might be the consequence of an ongoing infection in the GI tract, even after the respiratory infection has cleared,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“Alternatively, the presence of ongoing viral genetic material in the gut might be a trigger for the immune system to continually be active against the virus, and our immune system reaction may be the reason for long-COVID type symptoms,” she added. “This area is ripe for additional studies.”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues will continue studying viral shedding in fecal samples as part of the nationwide RECOVER Initiative.

When reached for comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview that previous studies have indicated that the virus may be detected in the stool for a month or more and for about 2 weeks on average. Whether the virus is infectious has been in question.

But it’s not so much that the virus is infectious in the GI tract and causing symptoms, he said. Rather, there are biomic changes related to COVID, including a loss of diversity in the gut bacteria, which disrupts the balance.

“This may actually in some way predispose some patients to impaired clearance of their symptoms,” Dr. Johnson explained. “There seems to be a growing recognition that this entity called long-haul COVID may be related to specific bacterial disruptions, and the more rapidly you can resolve these disruptions, the less likely you are to continue with long-haul symptoms.”

He said that among people who have mild COVID, the virus typically clears and gut bacteria return to normal. With severe or persistent illness, gut dysbiosis persists, he said.

“People need to be aware that the GI tract is involved in a sizable percent of patients with COVID,” Dr. Johnson said. “The GI-tract testing may reflect that the virus is there, but persistence of the detectable test positivity is very unlikely to reflect active virus.”

The authors note in this study that they collected only six samples from the participants over the 10-month period.

“Follow-up studies with more frequent sampling, especially in the first 2 months after diagnosis, may help build a more nuanced model of decline of fecal viral RNA concentration over time,” they write.

The study was supported by a Stanford ChemH-IMA grant, fellowships from the AACR and the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Johnson is a regular contributor to Medscape.

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

New data present further evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection can settle in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and that it can persist long after the infection has cleared the lungs.

Infection of the GI tract may figure prominently in long COVID, the study authors suggest.

Led by Aravind Natarajan, PhD, with the departments of genetics and medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, they analyzed fecal RNA shedding up to 10 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis in 673 stool samples from 113 patients with mild to moderate disease.

They found that in the week after diagnosis, COVID RNA remnants were present in the stool of approximately half (49.2%) of the patients. Seven months later, about 4% of them shed fecal viral RNA.

The authors note that there was no ongoing SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory samples of patients at the 4-month mark.

Using self-reported symptoms regularly collected by questionnaire, they also found a correlation of long-term fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

The findings were published online in Med.
 

Implications of long-term viral shedding

Previous studies have found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory and fecal samples and have documented viral replication in lung and intestinal tissue.

But before the current study, little had been known about long-term shedding, especially in those who have mild COVID. Most studies of viral shedding have been with severe COVID cases.

The authors note that most studies of this kind are cross-sectional. The few other longitudinal studies have focused on early time points just after diagnosis.

Senior author Ami S. Bhatt, MD, associate professor in the departments of medicine and hematology at Stanford, told this news organization that though the viral genetic material in the feces lingers, on the basis of available evidence, it is highly unlikely to be contagious in most cases.

She said that understanding the dynamics of fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will help interpret wastewater-based studies that are trying to determine population prevalence of the virus.

“While we don’t know the exact clinical importance of the longer-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with COVID-19, some have speculated that those who have long-term shedding of SARS-CoV-2 may have ongoing infections that might benefit from treatment,” she said.

“Our data support the idea that the long-term GI-related symptoms in some people might be the consequence of an ongoing infection in the GI tract, even after the respiratory infection has cleared,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“Alternatively, the presence of ongoing viral genetic material in the gut might be a trigger for the immune system to continually be active against the virus, and our immune system reaction may be the reason for long-COVID type symptoms,” she added. “This area is ripe for additional studies.”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues will continue studying viral shedding in fecal samples as part of the nationwide RECOVER Initiative.

When reached for comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview that previous studies have indicated that the virus may be detected in the stool for a month or more and for about 2 weeks on average. Whether the virus is infectious has been in question.

But it’s not so much that the virus is infectious in the GI tract and causing symptoms, he said. Rather, there are biomic changes related to COVID, including a loss of diversity in the gut bacteria, which disrupts the balance.

“This may actually in some way predispose some patients to impaired clearance of their symptoms,” Dr. Johnson explained. “There seems to be a growing recognition that this entity called long-haul COVID may be related to specific bacterial disruptions, and the more rapidly you can resolve these disruptions, the less likely you are to continue with long-haul symptoms.”

He said that among people who have mild COVID, the virus typically clears and gut bacteria return to normal. With severe or persistent illness, gut dysbiosis persists, he said.

“People need to be aware that the GI tract is involved in a sizable percent of patients with COVID,” Dr. Johnson said. “The GI-tract testing may reflect that the virus is there, but persistence of the detectable test positivity is very unlikely to reflect active virus.”

The authors note in this study that they collected only six samples from the participants over the 10-month period.

“Follow-up studies with more frequent sampling, especially in the first 2 months after diagnosis, may help build a more nuanced model of decline of fecal viral RNA concentration over time,” they write.

The study was supported by a Stanford ChemH-IMA grant, fellowships from the AACR and the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Johnson is a regular contributor to Medscape.

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

The current sustained increase in COVID-19 has brought the total number of cases in children to over 13 million since the start of the pandemic, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The latest weekly count – 62,467 reported for the week ending May 5 – was 17.4% higher than the previous week and marks four consecutive increases since early April, when cases dropped to their lowest point since last summer. The cumulative number of cases in children is 13,052,988, which accounts for 19.0% of all cases reported in the United States, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Other measures of incidence show the same steady rise. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID-19, which had dipped as low as 0.13 per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.19 per 100,000 on May 6, and the 7-day average for total admissions was 136 per day for May 1-7, compared with 118 for the last week of April, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At the state level, new admission rates for May 6 show wide variation, even regionally. Rhode Island came in with a 0.00 per 100,000 on that day, while Vermont recorded 0.88 admissions per 100,000, the highest of any state and lower only than the District of Columbia’s 1.23 per 100,000. Connecticut (0.45) and Massachusetts (0.33) also were in the highest group (see map), while Maine was in the lowest, CDC data show.

Nationally, emergency department visits also have been rising over the last month or so. Children aged 0-11 years, who were down to a 7-day average of 0.5% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID-19 in early April, saw that number rise to 1.4% on May 5. Children aged 12-15 years went from a rate of 0.3% in late March to the current 1.2%, as did 16- to 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The vaccination effort, meanwhile, continues to lose steam, at least among children who are currently eligible. Initial vaccinations in those aged 5-11 slipped to their lowest-ever 1-week total, 47,000 for April 28 to May 4, while children aged 16-17 continued a long-term slide that has the weekly count down to just 29,000, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

Here’s how those latest recipients changed the populations of vaccinated children in the last week: 35.4% of all 5- to 11-year-olds had received at least one dose as of May 4, compared with 35.3% on April 27, with increases from 67.4% to 67.5% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 72.7% to 72.8% among those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.
 

The current sustained increase in COVID-19 has brought the total number of cases in children to over 13 million since the start of the pandemic, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The latest weekly count – 62,467 reported for the week ending May 5 – was 17.4% higher than the previous week and marks four consecutive increases since early April, when cases dropped to their lowest point since last summer. The cumulative number of cases in children is 13,052,988, which accounts for 19.0% of all cases reported in the United States, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Other measures of incidence show the same steady rise. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID-19, which had dipped as low as 0.13 per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.19 per 100,000 on May 6, and the 7-day average for total admissions was 136 per day for May 1-7, compared with 118 for the last week of April, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At the state level, new admission rates for May 6 show wide variation, even regionally. Rhode Island came in with a 0.00 per 100,000 on that day, while Vermont recorded 0.88 admissions per 100,000, the highest of any state and lower only than the District of Columbia’s 1.23 per 100,000. Connecticut (0.45) and Massachusetts (0.33) also were in the highest group (see map), while Maine was in the lowest, CDC data show.

Nationally, emergency department visits also have been rising over the last month or so. Children aged 0-11 years, who were down to a 7-day average of 0.5% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID-19 in early April, saw that number rise to 1.4% on May 5. Children aged 12-15 years went from a rate of 0.3% in late March to the current 1.2%, as did 16- to 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The vaccination effort, meanwhile, continues to lose steam, at least among children who are currently eligible. Initial vaccinations in those aged 5-11 slipped to their lowest-ever 1-week total, 47,000 for April 28 to May 4, while children aged 16-17 continued a long-term slide that has the weekly count down to just 29,000, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

Here’s how those latest recipients changed the populations of vaccinated children in the last week: 35.4% of all 5- to 11-year-olds had received at least one dose as of May 4, compared with 35.3% on April 27, with increases from 67.4% to 67.5% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 72.7% to 72.8% among those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.
 

The current sustained increase in COVID-19 has brought the total number of cases in children to over 13 million since the start of the pandemic, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The latest weekly count – 62,467 reported for the week ending May 5 – was 17.4% higher than the previous week and marks four consecutive increases since early April, when cases dropped to their lowest point since last summer. The cumulative number of cases in children is 13,052,988, which accounts for 19.0% of all cases reported in the United States, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Other measures of incidence show the same steady rise. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 with confirmed COVID-19, which had dipped as low as 0.13 per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.19 per 100,000 on May 6, and the 7-day average for total admissions was 136 per day for May 1-7, compared with 118 for the last week of April, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At the state level, new admission rates for May 6 show wide variation, even regionally. Rhode Island came in with a 0.00 per 100,000 on that day, while Vermont recorded 0.88 admissions per 100,000, the highest of any state and lower only than the District of Columbia’s 1.23 per 100,000. Connecticut (0.45) and Massachusetts (0.33) also were in the highest group (see map), while Maine was in the lowest, CDC data show.

Nationally, emergency department visits also have been rising over the last month or so. Children aged 0-11 years, who were down to a 7-day average of 0.5% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID-19 in early April, saw that number rise to 1.4% on May 5. Children aged 12-15 years went from a rate of 0.3% in late March to the current 1.2%, as did 16- to 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The vaccination effort, meanwhile, continues to lose steam, at least among children who are currently eligible. Initial vaccinations in those aged 5-11 slipped to their lowest-ever 1-week total, 47,000 for April 28 to May 4, while children aged 16-17 continued a long-term slide that has the weekly count down to just 29,000, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

Here’s how those latest recipients changed the populations of vaccinated children in the last week: 35.4% of all 5- to 11-year-olds had received at least one dose as of May 4, compared with 35.3% on April 27, with increases from 67.4% to 67.5% for 12- to 15-year-olds and 72.7% to 72.8% among those aged 16-17, the CDC reported.
 

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.

The percentage of low-income pregnant mothers who received influenza and Tdap vaccinations fell sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Black and Hispanic patients, a new study finds.

The percentage of patients who received the influenza vaccines at two Medicaid clinics in Houston dropped from 78% before the pandemic to 61% during it (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53; P < .01), researchers reported at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The percentage receiving the Tdap vaccine dipped from 85% to 76% (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79; P < .01).

New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center pediatrician Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, who’s familiar with the study findings, called them “alarming” and said in an interview that they should be “a call to action for providers.”

“Continuing the status quo in our routine preventative health care and clinic operations means that we are losing ground in reduction and elimination of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

According to corresponding author Bani Ratan, MD, an ob.gyn. with the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, there’s been little if any previous research into routine, non-COVID vaccination in pregnant women during the pandemic.

For the study, researchers retrospectively analyzed the records of 939 pregnant women who entered prenatal care before 20 weeks (462 from May–November 2019, and 477 from May–November 2020) and delivered at full term.

Among ethnic groups, non-Hispanic Blacks saw the largest decline in influenza vaccines. Among them, the percentage who got them fell from 64% (73/114) to 35% (35/101; aOR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.52; P < .01). Only Hispanics had a statistically significant decline in Tdap vaccination (OR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34-0.80; P < .01, percentages not provided).

Another study presented at ACOG examined vaccination rates during the pandemic and found that Tdap vaccination rates dipped among pregnant women in a Philadelphia-area health care system.

Possible causes for the decline in routine vaccination include hesitancy linked to the COVID-19 vaccines and fewer office visits because of telemedicine, said Dr. Batan in an interview.

Dr. Permar blamed the role of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and the mistrust caused by the exclusion of pregnant women from early vaccine trials. She added that “challenges in health care staffing and issues of health care provider burnout that worsened during the pandemic likely contributed to a fraying of the focus on preventive health maintenance simply due to bandwidth of health professionals.”

In a separate study presented at ACOG, researchers at the State University of New York, Syracuse, reported on a survey of 157 pregnant women of whom just 38.2% were vaccinated against COVID-19. Among the unvaccinated, who were more likely to have less education, 66% reported that lack of data about vaccination was their primary concern.

No funding or disclosures are reported by study authors. Dr. Permar reported consulting for Merck, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Dynavax, and Hookipa on cytomegalovirus vaccine programs.

*This story was updated on 5/11/2022.