User login
In Case You Missed It: COVID
Medical boards pressured to let it slide when doctors spread COVID misinformation
Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.
“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”
The board’s statement was posted on a government website.
The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.
Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.
Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.
Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.
A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.
The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.
In Tennessee, state lawmakers called a special legislative session in October to address COVID restrictions, and Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a sweeping package of bills that push back against pandemic rules. One included language directed at the medical board’s recent COVID policy statement, making it more difficult for the panel to investigate complaints about physicians’ advice on COVID vaccines or treatments.
In November, Republican state Rep. John Ragan sent the medical board a letter demanding that the statement be deleted from the state’s website. Rep. Ragan leads a legislative panel that had raised the prospect of defunding the state’s health department over its promotion of COVID vaccines to teens.
Among his demands, Rep. Ragan listed 20 questions he wanted the medical board to answer in writing, including why the misinformation “policy” was proposed nearly two years into the pandemic, which scholars would determine what constitutes misinformation, and how was the “policy” not an infringement on the doctor-patient relationship.
“If you fail to act promptly, your organization will be required to appear before the Joint Government Operations Committee to explain your inaction,” Rep. Ragan wrote in the letter, obtained by Kaiser Health News and Nashville Public Radio.
In response to a request for comment, Rep. Ragan said that “any executive agency, including Board of Medical Examiners, that refuses to follow the law is subject to dissolution.”
He set a deadline of Dec. 7.
In Florida, a Republican-sponsored bill making its way through the state legislature proposes to ban medical boards from revoking or threatening to revoke doctors’ licenses for what they say unless “direct physical harm” of a patient occurred. If the publicized complaint can’t be proved, the board could owe a doctor up to $1.5 million in damages.
Although Florida’s medical board has not adopted the Federation of State Medical Boards’ COVID misinformation statement, the panel has considered misinformation complaints against physicians, including the state’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD.
Dr. Chaudhry said he’s surprised just how many COVID-related complaints are being filed across the country. Often, boards do not publicize investigations before a violation of ethics or standards is confirmed. But in response to a survey by the federation in late 2021, two-thirds of state boards reported an increase in misinformation complaints. And the federation said 12 boards had taken action against a licensed physician.
“At the end of the day, if a physician who is licensed engages in activity that causes harm, the state medical boards are the ones that historically have been set up to look into the situation and make a judgment about what happened or didn’t happen,” Dr. Chaudhry said. “And if you start to chip away at that, it becomes a slippery slope.”
The Georgia Composite Medical Board adopted a version of the federation’s misinformation guidance in early November and has been receiving 10-20 complaints each month, said Debi Dalton, MD, the chairperson. Two months in, no one had been sanctioned.
Dr. Dalton said that even putting out a misinformation policy leaves some “gray” area. Generally, physicians are expected to follow the “consensus,” rather than “the newest information that pops up on social media,” she said.
“We expect physicians to think ethically, professionally, and with the safety of patients in mind,” Dr. Dalton said.
A few physician groups are resisting attempts to root out misinformation, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, known for its stands against government regulation.
Some medical boards have opted against taking a public stand against misinformation.
The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners discussed signing on to the federation’s statement, according to the minutes from an October meeting. But after debating the potential legal ramifications in a private executive session, the board opted not to act.
In Tennessee, the Board of Medical Examiners met on the day Rep. Ragan had set as the deadline and voted to remove the misinformation statement from its website to avoid being called into a legislative hearing. But then, in late January, the board decided to stick with the policy – although it did not republish the statement online immediately – and more specifically defined misinformation, calling it “content that is false, inaccurate or misleading, even if spread unintentionally.”
Board members acknowledged they would likely get more pushback from lawmakers but said they wanted to protect their profession from interference.
“Doctors who are putting forth good evidence-based medicine deserve the protection of this board so they can actually say: ‘Hey, I’m in line with this guideline, and this is a source of truth,’” said Melanie Blake, MD, the board’s president. “We should be a source of truth.”
The medical board was looking into nearly 30 open complaints related to COVID when its misinformation statement came down from its website. As of early February, no Tennessee physician had faced disciplinary action.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.
Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.
“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”
The board’s statement was posted on a government website.
The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.
Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.
Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.
Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.
A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.
The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.
In Tennessee, state lawmakers called a special legislative session in October to address COVID restrictions, and Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a sweeping package of bills that push back against pandemic rules. One included language directed at the medical board’s recent COVID policy statement, making it more difficult for the panel to investigate complaints about physicians’ advice on COVID vaccines or treatments.
In November, Republican state Rep. John Ragan sent the medical board a letter demanding that the statement be deleted from the state’s website. Rep. Ragan leads a legislative panel that had raised the prospect of defunding the state’s health department over its promotion of COVID vaccines to teens.
Among his demands, Rep. Ragan listed 20 questions he wanted the medical board to answer in writing, including why the misinformation “policy” was proposed nearly two years into the pandemic, which scholars would determine what constitutes misinformation, and how was the “policy” not an infringement on the doctor-patient relationship.
“If you fail to act promptly, your organization will be required to appear before the Joint Government Operations Committee to explain your inaction,” Rep. Ragan wrote in the letter, obtained by Kaiser Health News and Nashville Public Radio.
In response to a request for comment, Rep. Ragan said that “any executive agency, including Board of Medical Examiners, that refuses to follow the law is subject to dissolution.”
He set a deadline of Dec. 7.
In Florida, a Republican-sponsored bill making its way through the state legislature proposes to ban medical boards from revoking or threatening to revoke doctors’ licenses for what they say unless “direct physical harm” of a patient occurred. If the publicized complaint can’t be proved, the board could owe a doctor up to $1.5 million in damages.
Although Florida’s medical board has not adopted the Federation of State Medical Boards’ COVID misinformation statement, the panel has considered misinformation complaints against physicians, including the state’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD.
Dr. Chaudhry said he’s surprised just how many COVID-related complaints are being filed across the country. Often, boards do not publicize investigations before a violation of ethics or standards is confirmed. But in response to a survey by the federation in late 2021, two-thirds of state boards reported an increase in misinformation complaints. And the federation said 12 boards had taken action against a licensed physician.
“At the end of the day, if a physician who is licensed engages in activity that causes harm, the state medical boards are the ones that historically have been set up to look into the situation and make a judgment about what happened or didn’t happen,” Dr. Chaudhry said. “And if you start to chip away at that, it becomes a slippery slope.”
The Georgia Composite Medical Board adopted a version of the federation’s misinformation guidance in early November and has been receiving 10-20 complaints each month, said Debi Dalton, MD, the chairperson. Two months in, no one had been sanctioned.
Dr. Dalton said that even putting out a misinformation policy leaves some “gray” area. Generally, physicians are expected to follow the “consensus,” rather than “the newest information that pops up on social media,” she said.
“We expect physicians to think ethically, professionally, and with the safety of patients in mind,” Dr. Dalton said.
A few physician groups are resisting attempts to root out misinformation, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, known for its stands against government regulation.
Some medical boards have opted against taking a public stand against misinformation.
The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners discussed signing on to the federation’s statement, according to the minutes from an October meeting. But after debating the potential legal ramifications in a private executive session, the board opted not to act.
In Tennessee, the Board of Medical Examiners met on the day Rep. Ragan had set as the deadline and voted to remove the misinformation statement from its website to avoid being called into a legislative hearing. But then, in late January, the board decided to stick with the policy – although it did not republish the statement online immediately – and more specifically defined misinformation, calling it “content that is false, inaccurate or misleading, even if spread unintentionally.”
Board members acknowledged they would likely get more pushback from lawmakers but said they wanted to protect their profession from interference.
“Doctors who are putting forth good evidence-based medicine deserve the protection of this board so they can actually say: ‘Hey, I’m in line with this guideline, and this is a source of truth,’” said Melanie Blake, MD, the board’s president. “We should be a source of truth.”
The medical board was looking into nearly 30 open complaints related to COVID when its misinformation statement came down from its website. As of early February, no Tennessee physician had faced disciplinary action.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.
Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.
“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”
The board’s statement was posted on a government website.
The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.
Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.
Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.
Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.
A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.
The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.
In Tennessee, state lawmakers called a special legislative session in October to address COVID restrictions, and Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a sweeping package of bills that push back against pandemic rules. One included language directed at the medical board’s recent COVID policy statement, making it more difficult for the panel to investigate complaints about physicians’ advice on COVID vaccines or treatments.
In November, Republican state Rep. John Ragan sent the medical board a letter demanding that the statement be deleted from the state’s website. Rep. Ragan leads a legislative panel that had raised the prospect of defunding the state’s health department over its promotion of COVID vaccines to teens.
Among his demands, Rep. Ragan listed 20 questions he wanted the medical board to answer in writing, including why the misinformation “policy” was proposed nearly two years into the pandemic, which scholars would determine what constitutes misinformation, and how was the “policy” not an infringement on the doctor-patient relationship.
“If you fail to act promptly, your organization will be required to appear before the Joint Government Operations Committee to explain your inaction,” Rep. Ragan wrote in the letter, obtained by Kaiser Health News and Nashville Public Radio.
In response to a request for comment, Rep. Ragan said that “any executive agency, including Board of Medical Examiners, that refuses to follow the law is subject to dissolution.”
He set a deadline of Dec. 7.
In Florida, a Republican-sponsored bill making its way through the state legislature proposes to ban medical boards from revoking or threatening to revoke doctors’ licenses for what they say unless “direct physical harm” of a patient occurred. If the publicized complaint can’t be proved, the board could owe a doctor up to $1.5 million in damages.
Although Florida’s medical board has not adopted the Federation of State Medical Boards’ COVID misinformation statement, the panel has considered misinformation complaints against physicians, including the state’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD.
Dr. Chaudhry said he’s surprised just how many COVID-related complaints are being filed across the country. Often, boards do not publicize investigations before a violation of ethics or standards is confirmed. But in response to a survey by the federation in late 2021, two-thirds of state boards reported an increase in misinformation complaints. And the federation said 12 boards had taken action against a licensed physician.
“At the end of the day, if a physician who is licensed engages in activity that causes harm, the state medical boards are the ones that historically have been set up to look into the situation and make a judgment about what happened or didn’t happen,” Dr. Chaudhry said. “And if you start to chip away at that, it becomes a slippery slope.”
The Georgia Composite Medical Board adopted a version of the federation’s misinformation guidance in early November and has been receiving 10-20 complaints each month, said Debi Dalton, MD, the chairperson. Two months in, no one had been sanctioned.
Dr. Dalton said that even putting out a misinformation policy leaves some “gray” area. Generally, physicians are expected to follow the “consensus,” rather than “the newest information that pops up on social media,” she said.
“We expect physicians to think ethically, professionally, and with the safety of patients in mind,” Dr. Dalton said.
A few physician groups are resisting attempts to root out misinformation, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, known for its stands against government regulation.
Some medical boards have opted against taking a public stand against misinformation.
The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners discussed signing on to the federation’s statement, according to the minutes from an October meeting. But after debating the potential legal ramifications in a private executive session, the board opted not to act.
In Tennessee, the Board of Medical Examiners met on the day Rep. Ragan had set as the deadline and voted to remove the misinformation statement from its website to avoid being called into a legislative hearing. But then, in late January, the board decided to stick with the policy – although it did not republish the statement online immediately – and more specifically defined misinformation, calling it “content that is false, inaccurate or misleading, even if spread unintentionally.”
Board members acknowledged they would likely get more pushback from lawmakers but said they wanted to protect their profession from interference.
“Doctors who are putting forth good evidence-based medicine deserve the protection of this board so they can actually say: ‘Hey, I’m in line with this guideline, and this is a source of truth,’” said Melanie Blake, MD, the board’s president. “We should be a source of truth.”
The medical board was looking into nearly 30 open complaints related to COVID when its misinformation statement came down from its website. As of early February, no Tennessee physician had faced disciplinary action.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.
New study shows natural immunity to COVID has enduring strength
It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.
“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, ” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.
This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.
One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.
This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”
The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.
An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.
“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
A focus on earlier strains
Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.
The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.
To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.
They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.
These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.
Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
Protection linked to obesity
Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.
There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m2.
This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.
“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.
“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
Before the boosters
Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.
“Again, not the current situation.”
“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.
“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, ” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.
This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.
One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.
This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”
The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.
An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.
“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
A focus on earlier strains
Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.
The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.
To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.
They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.
These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.
Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
Protection linked to obesity
Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.
There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m2.
This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.
“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.
“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
Before the boosters
Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.
“Again, not the current situation.”
“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.
“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, ” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.
This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.
One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.
This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”
The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.
An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.
“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
A focus on earlier strains
Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.
The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.
To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.
They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.
These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.
Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
Protection linked to obesity
Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.
There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m2.
This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.
“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.
“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
Before the boosters
Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.
“Again, not the current situation.”
“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and COVID: Weekly cases down by more than half
A third consecutive week of declines in new COVID-19 cases among children has brought the weekly count down by 74% since the Omicron surge peaked in mid-January, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
and by 74% from the peak of 1.15 million cases recorded for the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. They also noted that the weekly tally was still higher than anything seen during the Delta surge.
The total number of pediatric cases was over 12.3 million as of Feb. 10, with children representing 18.9% of cases in all ages, according to the AAP/CHA report. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the two measures at 10.4 million and 17.3% on its COVID Data Tracker, based on availability of age data for 59.6 million total cases as of Feb. 14. The CDC also reported that 1,282 children have died from COVID-19 so far, which is about 0.17% of all deaths with age data available.
The AAP and CHA have been collecting data from state and territorial health departments, which have not always been consistently available over the course of the pandemic. Also, the CDC defines children as those under age 18 years, but that upper boundary varies from 14 to 20 among the states.
The decline of the Omicron variant also can be seen in new admissions of children with confirmed COVID-19, which continued to drop. The 7-day average of 435 admissions per day for the week of Feb. 6-12 was less than half of the peak seen in mid-January, when it reached 914 per day. The daily admission rate on Feb. 12 was 0.60 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years – again, less than half the peak rate of 1.25 reported on Jan. 16, CDC data show.
The fading threat of Omicron also seems to be reflected in recent vaccination trends. Both initial doses and completions declined for the fourth consecutive week (Feb. 3-9) among children aged 5-11 years, while initiations held steady for 12- to 17-year-olds but completions declined for the third straight week, the AAP said in its separate vaccination report, which is based on data from the CDC.
As of Feb. 14, almost 32% of children aged 5-11 – that’s almost 9.2 million individuals – had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and just over 24% (6.9 million) were fully vaccinated, the CDC reported. For children aged 12-17, the corresponding figures are 67% (16.9 million) and 57% (14.4 million). Newly available data from the CDC also indicate that 19.5% (2.8 million) of children aged 12-17 have received a booster dose.
A third consecutive week of declines in new COVID-19 cases among children has brought the weekly count down by 74% since the Omicron surge peaked in mid-January, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
and by 74% from the peak of 1.15 million cases recorded for the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. They also noted that the weekly tally was still higher than anything seen during the Delta surge.
The total number of pediatric cases was over 12.3 million as of Feb. 10, with children representing 18.9% of cases in all ages, according to the AAP/CHA report. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the two measures at 10.4 million and 17.3% on its COVID Data Tracker, based on availability of age data for 59.6 million total cases as of Feb. 14. The CDC also reported that 1,282 children have died from COVID-19 so far, which is about 0.17% of all deaths with age data available.
The AAP and CHA have been collecting data from state and territorial health departments, which have not always been consistently available over the course of the pandemic. Also, the CDC defines children as those under age 18 years, but that upper boundary varies from 14 to 20 among the states.
The decline of the Omicron variant also can be seen in new admissions of children with confirmed COVID-19, which continued to drop. The 7-day average of 435 admissions per day for the week of Feb. 6-12 was less than half of the peak seen in mid-January, when it reached 914 per day. The daily admission rate on Feb. 12 was 0.60 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years – again, less than half the peak rate of 1.25 reported on Jan. 16, CDC data show.
The fading threat of Omicron also seems to be reflected in recent vaccination trends. Both initial doses and completions declined for the fourth consecutive week (Feb. 3-9) among children aged 5-11 years, while initiations held steady for 12- to 17-year-olds but completions declined for the third straight week, the AAP said in its separate vaccination report, which is based on data from the CDC.
As of Feb. 14, almost 32% of children aged 5-11 – that’s almost 9.2 million individuals – had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and just over 24% (6.9 million) were fully vaccinated, the CDC reported. For children aged 12-17, the corresponding figures are 67% (16.9 million) and 57% (14.4 million). Newly available data from the CDC also indicate that 19.5% (2.8 million) of children aged 12-17 have received a booster dose.
A third consecutive week of declines in new COVID-19 cases among children has brought the weekly count down by 74% since the Omicron surge peaked in mid-January, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
and by 74% from the peak of 1.15 million cases recorded for the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. They also noted that the weekly tally was still higher than anything seen during the Delta surge.
The total number of pediatric cases was over 12.3 million as of Feb. 10, with children representing 18.9% of cases in all ages, according to the AAP/CHA report. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the two measures at 10.4 million and 17.3% on its COVID Data Tracker, based on availability of age data for 59.6 million total cases as of Feb. 14. The CDC also reported that 1,282 children have died from COVID-19 so far, which is about 0.17% of all deaths with age data available.
The AAP and CHA have been collecting data from state and territorial health departments, which have not always been consistently available over the course of the pandemic. Also, the CDC defines children as those under age 18 years, but that upper boundary varies from 14 to 20 among the states.
The decline of the Omicron variant also can be seen in new admissions of children with confirmed COVID-19, which continued to drop. The 7-day average of 435 admissions per day for the week of Feb. 6-12 was less than half of the peak seen in mid-January, when it reached 914 per day. The daily admission rate on Feb. 12 was 0.60 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years – again, less than half the peak rate of 1.25 reported on Jan. 16, CDC data show.
The fading threat of Omicron also seems to be reflected in recent vaccination trends. Both initial doses and completions declined for the fourth consecutive week (Feb. 3-9) among children aged 5-11 years, while initiations held steady for 12- to 17-year-olds but completions declined for the third straight week, the AAP said in its separate vaccination report, which is based on data from the CDC.
As of Feb. 14, almost 32% of children aged 5-11 – that’s almost 9.2 million individuals – had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and just over 24% (6.9 million) were fully vaccinated, the CDC reported. For children aged 12-17, the corresponding figures are 67% (16.9 million) and 57% (14.4 million). Newly available data from the CDC also indicate that 19.5% (2.8 million) of children aged 12-17 have received a booster dose.
Long COVID symptoms linked to effects on vagus nerve
Several long COVID symptoms could be linked to the effects of the coronavirus on a vital central nerve, according to new research being released in the spring.
The vagus nerve, which runs from the brain into the body, connects to the heart, lungs, intestines, and several muscles involved with swallowing. It plays a role in several body functions that control heart rate, speech, the gag reflex, sweating, and digestion.
Those with long COVID and vagus nerve problems could face long-term issues with their voice, a hard time swallowing, dizziness, a high heart rate, low blood pressure, and diarrhea, the study authors found.
Their findings will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in late April.
“Most long COVID subjects with vagus nerve dysfunction symptoms had a range of significant, clinically relevant, structural and/or functional alterations in their vagus nerve, including nerve thickening, trouble swallowing, and symptoms of impaired breathing,” the study authors wrote. “Our findings so far thus point at vagus nerve dysfunction as a central pathophysiological feature of long COVID.”
Researchers from the University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol in Barcelona performed a study to look at vagus nerve functioning in long COVID patients. Among 348 patients, about 66% had at least one symptom that suggested vagus nerve dysfunction. The researchers did a broad evaluation with imaging and functional tests for 22 patients in the university’s Long COVID Clinic from March to June 2021.
Of the 22 patients, 20 were women, and the median age was 44. The most frequent symptoms related to vagus nerve dysfunction were diarrhea (73%), high heart rates (59%), dizziness (45%), swallowing problems (45%), voice problems (45%), and low blood pressure (14%).
Almost all (19 of 22 patients) had three or more symptoms related to vagus nerve dysfunction. The average length of symptoms was 14 months.
Of 22 patients, 6 had a change in the vagus nerve in the neck, which the researchers observed by ultrasound. They had a thickening of the vagus nerve and increased “echogenicity,” which suggests inflammation.
What’s more, 10 of 22 patients had flattened “diaphragmatic curves” during a thoracic ultrasound, which means the diaphragm doesn’t move as well as it should during breathing, and abnormal breathing. In another assessment, 10 of 16 patients had lower maximum inspiration pressures, suggesting a weakness in breathing muscles.
Eating and digestion were also impaired in some patients, with 13 reporting trouble with swallowing. During a gastric and bowel function assessment, eight patients couldn’t move food from the esophagus to the stomach as well as they should, while nine patients had acid reflux. Three patients had a hiatal hernia, which happens when the upper part of the stomach bulges through the diaphragm into the chest cavity.
The voices of some patients changed as well. Eight patients had an abnormal voice handicap index 30 test, which is a standard way to measure voice function. Among those, seven patients had dysphonia, or persistent voice problems.
The study is ongoing, and the research team is continuing to recruit patients to study the links between long COVID and the vagus nerve. The full paper isn’t yet available, and the research hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
“The study appears to add to a growing collection of data suggesting at least some of the symptoms of long COVID is mediated through a direct impact on the nervous system,” David Strain, MD, a clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre.
“Establishing vagal nerve damage is useful information, as there are recognized, albeit not perfect, treatments for other causes of vagal nerve dysfunction that may be extrapolated to be beneficial for people with this type of long COVID,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Several long COVID symptoms could be linked to the effects of the coronavirus on a vital central nerve, according to new research being released in the spring.
The vagus nerve, which runs from the brain into the body, connects to the heart, lungs, intestines, and several muscles involved with swallowing. It plays a role in several body functions that control heart rate, speech, the gag reflex, sweating, and digestion.
Those with long COVID and vagus nerve problems could face long-term issues with their voice, a hard time swallowing, dizziness, a high heart rate, low blood pressure, and diarrhea, the study authors found.
Their findings will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in late April.
“Most long COVID subjects with vagus nerve dysfunction symptoms had a range of significant, clinically relevant, structural and/or functional alterations in their vagus nerve, including nerve thickening, trouble swallowing, and symptoms of impaired breathing,” the study authors wrote. “Our findings so far thus point at vagus nerve dysfunction as a central pathophysiological feature of long COVID.”
Researchers from the University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol in Barcelona performed a study to look at vagus nerve functioning in long COVID patients. Among 348 patients, about 66% had at least one symptom that suggested vagus nerve dysfunction. The researchers did a broad evaluation with imaging and functional tests for 22 patients in the university’s Long COVID Clinic from March to June 2021.
Of the 22 patients, 20 were women, and the median age was 44. The most frequent symptoms related to vagus nerve dysfunction were diarrhea (73%), high heart rates (59%), dizziness (45%), swallowing problems (45%), voice problems (45%), and low blood pressure (14%).
Almost all (19 of 22 patients) had three or more symptoms related to vagus nerve dysfunction. The average length of symptoms was 14 months.
Of 22 patients, 6 had a change in the vagus nerve in the neck, which the researchers observed by ultrasound. They had a thickening of the vagus nerve and increased “echogenicity,” which suggests inflammation.
What’s more, 10 of 22 patients had flattened “diaphragmatic curves” during a thoracic ultrasound, which means the diaphragm doesn’t move as well as it should during breathing, and abnormal breathing. In another assessment, 10 of 16 patients had lower maximum inspiration pressures, suggesting a weakness in breathing muscles.
Eating and digestion were also impaired in some patients, with 13 reporting trouble with swallowing. During a gastric and bowel function assessment, eight patients couldn’t move food from the esophagus to the stomach as well as they should, while nine patients had acid reflux. Three patients had a hiatal hernia, which happens when the upper part of the stomach bulges through the diaphragm into the chest cavity.
The voices of some patients changed as well. Eight patients had an abnormal voice handicap index 30 test, which is a standard way to measure voice function. Among those, seven patients had dysphonia, or persistent voice problems.
The study is ongoing, and the research team is continuing to recruit patients to study the links between long COVID and the vagus nerve. The full paper isn’t yet available, and the research hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
“The study appears to add to a growing collection of data suggesting at least some of the symptoms of long COVID is mediated through a direct impact on the nervous system,” David Strain, MD, a clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre.
“Establishing vagal nerve damage is useful information, as there are recognized, albeit not perfect, treatments for other causes of vagal nerve dysfunction that may be extrapolated to be beneficial for people with this type of long COVID,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Several long COVID symptoms could be linked to the effects of the coronavirus on a vital central nerve, according to new research being released in the spring.
The vagus nerve, which runs from the brain into the body, connects to the heart, lungs, intestines, and several muscles involved with swallowing. It plays a role in several body functions that control heart rate, speech, the gag reflex, sweating, and digestion.
Those with long COVID and vagus nerve problems could face long-term issues with their voice, a hard time swallowing, dizziness, a high heart rate, low blood pressure, and diarrhea, the study authors found.
Their findings will be presented at the 2022 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in late April.
“Most long COVID subjects with vagus nerve dysfunction symptoms had a range of significant, clinically relevant, structural and/or functional alterations in their vagus nerve, including nerve thickening, trouble swallowing, and symptoms of impaired breathing,” the study authors wrote. “Our findings so far thus point at vagus nerve dysfunction as a central pathophysiological feature of long COVID.”
Researchers from the University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol in Barcelona performed a study to look at vagus nerve functioning in long COVID patients. Among 348 patients, about 66% had at least one symptom that suggested vagus nerve dysfunction. The researchers did a broad evaluation with imaging and functional tests for 22 patients in the university’s Long COVID Clinic from March to June 2021.
Of the 22 patients, 20 were women, and the median age was 44. The most frequent symptoms related to vagus nerve dysfunction were diarrhea (73%), high heart rates (59%), dizziness (45%), swallowing problems (45%), voice problems (45%), and low blood pressure (14%).
Almost all (19 of 22 patients) had three or more symptoms related to vagus nerve dysfunction. The average length of symptoms was 14 months.
Of 22 patients, 6 had a change in the vagus nerve in the neck, which the researchers observed by ultrasound. They had a thickening of the vagus nerve and increased “echogenicity,” which suggests inflammation.
What’s more, 10 of 22 patients had flattened “diaphragmatic curves” during a thoracic ultrasound, which means the diaphragm doesn’t move as well as it should during breathing, and abnormal breathing. In another assessment, 10 of 16 patients had lower maximum inspiration pressures, suggesting a weakness in breathing muscles.
Eating and digestion were also impaired in some patients, with 13 reporting trouble with swallowing. During a gastric and bowel function assessment, eight patients couldn’t move food from the esophagus to the stomach as well as they should, while nine patients had acid reflux. Three patients had a hiatal hernia, which happens when the upper part of the stomach bulges through the diaphragm into the chest cavity.
The voices of some patients changed as well. Eight patients had an abnormal voice handicap index 30 test, which is a standard way to measure voice function. Among those, seven patients had dysphonia, or persistent voice problems.
The study is ongoing, and the research team is continuing to recruit patients to study the links between long COVID and the vagus nerve. The full paper isn’t yet available, and the research hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.
“The study appears to add to a growing collection of data suggesting at least some of the symptoms of long COVID is mediated through a direct impact on the nervous system,” David Strain, MD, a clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre.
“Establishing vagal nerve damage is useful information, as there are recognized, albeit not perfect, treatments for other causes of vagal nerve dysfunction that may be extrapolated to be beneficial for people with this type of long COVID,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Estrogen supplementation may reduce COVID-19 death risk
Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.
The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.
Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.
“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.
However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.
He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”
“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?
Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.
According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.
The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).
However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.
The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.
Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.
Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.
“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.
In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”
Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”
The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.
The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.
Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.
“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.
However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.
He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”
“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?
Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.
According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.
The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).
However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.
The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.
Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.
Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.
“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.
In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”
Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”
The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.
The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.
Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.
“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.
However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”
Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.
He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”
“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?
Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.
According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.
The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).
However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.
The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.
Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.
Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.
“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.
While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.
In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”
Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”
The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ OPEN
Can cancer patients get approved COVID therapies?
In mid-November, Kevin Billingsley, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., was keeping a close eye on the new COVID variant sweeping across South Africa. Six weeks later, the Omicron variant had become the dominant strain in the U.S. – and the Yale health system was no exception.
“As we entered January, we had a breathtaking rate of infection in our hospital,” said Dr. Billingsley, who also leads clinical care at the Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Some of the newly authorized COVID agents were available but not widely enough to make a clinically meaningful impact to protect all high-risk individuals during this surge.”
That left the team at Yale with difficult decisions about who would receive these treatments and who wouldn’t.
The health system convened a COVID-19 immunocompromised working group to identify which patients should get priority access to one of the promising drugs authorized to treat the infection – the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab and antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir – or the sole available option to prevent it, Evusheld.
“Although clinically sound, none of these decisions have been easy,” Dr. Billingsley told this news organization. “We have done a lot of case-by-case reviewing and a lot of handwringing. Omicron has been a wild ride for us all, and we have been doing the best we can with limited resources.”
‘We’re seeing incredible variability’
The team at Yale is not alone. The restricted supply of COVID-19 treatments has led many oncologists and other experts across the U.S. to create carefully curated lists of their most vulnerable patients.
In late December, the National Institutes of Health published broad criteria to help clinicians prioritize patients most likely to benefit from these therapies. A handful of state health departments, including those in Michigan and Minnesota, established their own standards. Patients with cancer – specifically those with hematologic malignancies and receiving oncology therapies that compromise the immune system – appeared at the top of everyone’s list.
But ultimately individual decisions about who receives these drugs and how they’re allocated fell to institutions.
“Overall, what we’re seeing is incredible variability across the country, because there’s no uniform agreement on what comprises best practices on allocating scarce resources,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “There are so many people at the top of most lists, and the drugs are in such short supply, that there’s no guarantee even those in the top tier will get it.”
This news organization spoke to experts across the country about their experiences accessing these treatments during the Omicron surge and their strategies prioritizing patients with cancer.
Dealing with limited supply
Overall, the limited supply of COVID-19 drugs means not every patient who’s eligible to receive a treatment will get one.
A snapshot of the past 2 weeks, for instance, shows that the count of new infections hit almost 4.3 million, while distribution of the two antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab reached just over 600,000 courses.
Since receiving emergency use authorization in early December, almost 500,000 courses of the pre-exposure prophylactic agent Evusheld – which offers about 6 months of protection for immunocompromised individuals – have been distributed; however, about 7 million adults in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it.
In addition, the distribution of drugs is uneven. The federal government manages the overall distribution to states, but states then decide how to divvy up these allocations to hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers. In Ohio, for instance, the antivirals go to providers who already receive monoclonal antibodies, while in Tennessee, the supply of antiviral agents only goes to Walmart pharmacies.
This strategy, Dr. Wynia explained, can leave clinicians at the mercy of where and how much states decide to allocate to each location. “I’ve heard of some hospitals and health systems in Colorado that aren’t using all they’ve got, but most don’t have nearly enough,” Dr. Wynia said. However, he noted, “some of that is inevitable. We will never get a perfect distribution of these drugs when there is such variable need and demand.”
And, according to Nicolette Louissaint, PhD, MBA, senior vice president of policy and strategic planning at the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, “we can take some comfort that the federal government is actively looking at cases from week to week and working with state and local health departments to see who needs these products, which means the process is constantly being reviewed and adjusted.”
Plus, not every positive COVID-19 case, even among immunocompromised individuals, necessarily warrants treatment. “If, for instance, an individual with cancer has a mild case of COVID-19, their provider may not deem it necessary for them to receive treatment,” Dr. Louissaint noted.
Still, given the limited and unpredictable supply, “we have had to be thoughtful about who gets these drugs,” said Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD, president of the Levine Cancer Institute, part of the 40-hospital Atrium Health system in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Dr. Raghavan said the highest priority goes to patients with hematologic malignancies, those receiving or coming off chemotherapy or experiencing myelosuppression and immune paresis, as well as those who have undergone organ transplants. Age and other comorbidities, such as diabetes or obesity, play into the lineup as well.
To further hone their priority list, the Levine Cancer Institute has implemented a cancer-centered Hospital at Home initiative. The program includes 40 oncology nurse navigators who routinely screen and score all cancer patients who test positive for COVID-19 by their symptoms and risk factors. For a time-sensitive treatment like Paxlovid, this close monitoring allows patients with COVID to access the pills within 5 days of symptom onset.
Ultimately, “the decision regarding who gets these drugs is [made] by a team to overcome any risk of personal bias, and some of it just comes down to the interface between clinical judgment and available data,” Dr. Raghavan told this news organization. “Although we’d like to have more COVID drugs available and fewer patients with COVID, we have been able to get adequate supplies for our most at-risk patients.”
Like Dr. Raghavan, Karen Bloch, MD, MPH, the medical director for the COVID Infusion Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), said the clinic has had to be highly selective about which patients would benefit most from the COVID monoclonal antibodies. For patients with cancer, her team prioritizes individuals who would be least able to develop antibodies through vaccination or natural infection – which includes patients with B cell malignancies, acute myeloid leukemia, or multiple myeloma receiving active treatment, as well as those who recently received an allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant.
“Since our criteria for treatment with therapies such as sotrovimab and Evusheld are pretty stringent, we have had sufficient supply to treat those who meet our internal ‘category 1’ predetermined criteria,” said Dr. Bloch, professor of medicine and associate division director for clinical affairs at VUMC, Nashville. “More recently, as the supply chain has begun to open up, we’ve been able to loosen our criteria for sotrovimab, though not for Evusheld yet.”
The Yale team described a similar evolution. “Initially, only a small subset of oncology patients could get these drugs,” said Osama (Sam) Abdelghany, PharmD, MHA, associate director of Oncology Pharmacy Services at Smilow Cancer Hospital. But as the caseload has diminished, Dr. Abdelghany noted, “we have been able to reach many more patients with COVID-19.”
An equitable system?
Dr. Wynia, who has written many reports on crisis standards of care, has spent thousands of hours delving into the ethics of allocating scarce resources during a disaster.
A core problem arises when there are too many people who need a scarce resource and no way of differentiating among them.
In response to the limited supply of COVID-19 treatments, some institutions, such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, have created a lottery system. Others, such as Johns Hopkins Medicine, have opted for first come, first served. Each strategy comes with caveats.
“First come, first served prioritization may be quicker, but it gives more well-resourced people an advantage and lends itself to people abusing the system or exacerbating existing disparities,” Dr. Wynia said.
While a lottery system may be more equitable, this strategy often comes at the price of efficiency. “The practicality of doing a lottery when you have to make a decision about whether or not to treat the patient sitting in front of you comes with its own challenges,” Dr. Wynia said.
At the University of Colorado, he explained, the health center constantly scans medical records for patients who have been diagnosed with COVID and fall into a high-risk group. That way clinicians can call or email those most likely to benefit from these drugs.
“It ends up being a bit of a first come, first served strategy,” Dr. Wynia said. “But we also do not have a huge supply coming in each week, so reaching out to the most eligible people when we have the drugs in hand means more privileged patients are less likely to game the system.”
To manage the supply of Evusheld, Timothy Kubal, MD, MBA, and colleagues also reach out to patients most likely to benefit – specifically, those who can’t mount an adequate antibody response after vaccination.
“We screen all of our patients who have been receiving anti-CD20 agents and other chemotherapy agents known to suppress antibody response,” Dr. Kubal, a medical oncologist/hematologist at the Moffitt Institute in Tampa, Florida, said in an interview. “We then test those patients for antibodies and deliver Evusheld if they have no evidence of antibodies.”
Fortunately, in the coming months, distribution of these drugs should improve significantly. Pfizer says it expects to deliver 10 million courses of Paxlovid by the end of June, and another 10 million by the end of September. More than 1 million courses of sotrovimab should be distributed by GlaxoSmithKline through the end of March. And, recently, the Biden administration announced it purchased 1.2 million courses of Evusheld from AstraZeneca.
“Every few weeks, because the COVID picture changes, the demand changes,” said Dr. Louissaint. “With vaccination rates going up and cases going down, fewer patients will need these products.”
Still, the constant barrage of supply shortages over the past 2 years – from COVID tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment early on to COVID vaccines a year later and more recently health care staff and COVID tests once again – has taken its toll.
“We have faced supply challenge after challenge and have had to be creative in each situation,” said Lisa Barbarotta, MSN, APRN, program director of Oncology Education and Clinical Practice at Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Nothing has been easy about this.”
And, Dr. Bloch cautioned, even with broader access to COVID-19 drugs on the horizon, there is still no substitute for vaccination. “Getting vaccinated is the best and first line of defense for most people,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In mid-November, Kevin Billingsley, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., was keeping a close eye on the new COVID variant sweeping across South Africa. Six weeks later, the Omicron variant had become the dominant strain in the U.S. – and the Yale health system was no exception.
“As we entered January, we had a breathtaking rate of infection in our hospital,” said Dr. Billingsley, who also leads clinical care at the Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Some of the newly authorized COVID agents were available but not widely enough to make a clinically meaningful impact to protect all high-risk individuals during this surge.”
That left the team at Yale with difficult decisions about who would receive these treatments and who wouldn’t.
The health system convened a COVID-19 immunocompromised working group to identify which patients should get priority access to one of the promising drugs authorized to treat the infection – the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab and antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir – or the sole available option to prevent it, Evusheld.
“Although clinically sound, none of these decisions have been easy,” Dr. Billingsley told this news organization. “We have done a lot of case-by-case reviewing and a lot of handwringing. Omicron has been a wild ride for us all, and we have been doing the best we can with limited resources.”
‘We’re seeing incredible variability’
The team at Yale is not alone. The restricted supply of COVID-19 treatments has led many oncologists and other experts across the U.S. to create carefully curated lists of their most vulnerable patients.
In late December, the National Institutes of Health published broad criteria to help clinicians prioritize patients most likely to benefit from these therapies. A handful of state health departments, including those in Michigan and Minnesota, established their own standards. Patients with cancer – specifically those with hematologic malignancies and receiving oncology therapies that compromise the immune system – appeared at the top of everyone’s list.
But ultimately individual decisions about who receives these drugs and how they’re allocated fell to institutions.
“Overall, what we’re seeing is incredible variability across the country, because there’s no uniform agreement on what comprises best practices on allocating scarce resources,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “There are so many people at the top of most lists, and the drugs are in such short supply, that there’s no guarantee even those in the top tier will get it.”
This news organization spoke to experts across the country about their experiences accessing these treatments during the Omicron surge and their strategies prioritizing patients with cancer.
Dealing with limited supply
Overall, the limited supply of COVID-19 drugs means not every patient who’s eligible to receive a treatment will get one.
A snapshot of the past 2 weeks, for instance, shows that the count of new infections hit almost 4.3 million, while distribution of the two antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab reached just over 600,000 courses.
Since receiving emergency use authorization in early December, almost 500,000 courses of the pre-exposure prophylactic agent Evusheld – which offers about 6 months of protection for immunocompromised individuals – have been distributed; however, about 7 million adults in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it.
In addition, the distribution of drugs is uneven. The federal government manages the overall distribution to states, but states then decide how to divvy up these allocations to hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers. In Ohio, for instance, the antivirals go to providers who already receive monoclonal antibodies, while in Tennessee, the supply of antiviral agents only goes to Walmart pharmacies.
This strategy, Dr. Wynia explained, can leave clinicians at the mercy of where and how much states decide to allocate to each location. “I’ve heard of some hospitals and health systems in Colorado that aren’t using all they’ve got, but most don’t have nearly enough,” Dr. Wynia said. However, he noted, “some of that is inevitable. We will never get a perfect distribution of these drugs when there is such variable need and demand.”
And, according to Nicolette Louissaint, PhD, MBA, senior vice president of policy and strategic planning at the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, “we can take some comfort that the federal government is actively looking at cases from week to week and working with state and local health departments to see who needs these products, which means the process is constantly being reviewed and adjusted.”
Plus, not every positive COVID-19 case, even among immunocompromised individuals, necessarily warrants treatment. “If, for instance, an individual with cancer has a mild case of COVID-19, their provider may not deem it necessary for them to receive treatment,” Dr. Louissaint noted.
Still, given the limited and unpredictable supply, “we have had to be thoughtful about who gets these drugs,” said Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD, president of the Levine Cancer Institute, part of the 40-hospital Atrium Health system in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Dr. Raghavan said the highest priority goes to patients with hematologic malignancies, those receiving or coming off chemotherapy or experiencing myelosuppression and immune paresis, as well as those who have undergone organ transplants. Age and other comorbidities, such as diabetes or obesity, play into the lineup as well.
To further hone their priority list, the Levine Cancer Institute has implemented a cancer-centered Hospital at Home initiative. The program includes 40 oncology nurse navigators who routinely screen and score all cancer patients who test positive for COVID-19 by their symptoms and risk factors. For a time-sensitive treatment like Paxlovid, this close monitoring allows patients with COVID to access the pills within 5 days of symptom onset.
Ultimately, “the decision regarding who gets these drugs is [made] by a team to overcome any risk of personal bias, and some of it just comes down to the interface between clinical judgment and available data,” Dr. Raghavan told this news organization. “Although we’d like to have more COVID drugs available and fewer patients with COVID, we have been able to get adequate supplies for our most at-risk patients.”
Like Dr. Raghavan, Karen Bloch, MD, MPH, the medical director for the COVID Infusion Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), said the clinic has had to be highly selective about which patients would benefit most from the COVID monoclonal antibodies. For patients with cancer, her team prioritizes individuals who would be least able to develop antibodies through vaccination or natural infection – which includes patients with B cell malignancies, acute myeloid leukemia, or multiple myeloma receiving active treatment, as well as those who recently received an allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant.
“Since our criteria for treatment with therapies such as sotrovimab and Evusheld are pretty stringent, we have had sufficient supply to treat those who meet our internal ‘category 1’ predetermined criteria,” said Dr. Bloch, professor of medicine and associate division director for clinical affairs at VUMC, Nashville. “More recently, as the supply chain has begun to open up, we’ve been able to loosen our criteria for sotrovimab, though not for Evusheld yet.”
The Yale team described a similar evolution. “Initially, only a small subset of oncology patients could get these drugs,” said Osama (Sam) Abdelghany, PharmD, MHA, associate director of Oncology Pharmacy Services at Smilow Cancer Hospital. But as the caseload has diminished, Dr. Abdelghany noted, “we have been able to reach many more patients with COVID-19.”
An equitable system?
Dr. Wynia, who has written many reports on crisis standards of care, has spent thousands of hours delving into the ethics of allocating scarce resources during a disaster.
A core problem arises when there are too many people who need a scarce resource and no way of differentiating among them.
In response to the limited supply of COVID-19 treatments, some institutions, such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, have created a lottery system. Others, such as Johns Hopkins Medicine, have opted for first come, first served. Each strategy comes with caveats.
“First come, first served prioritization may be quicker, but it gives more well-resourced people an advantage and lends itself to people abusing the system or exacerbating existing disparities,” Dr. Wynia said.
While a lottery system may be more equitable, this strategy often comes at the price of efficiency. “The practicality of doing a lottery when you have to make a decision about whether or not to treat the patient sitting in front of you comes with its own challenges,” Dr. Wynia said.
At the University of Colorado, he explained, the health center constantly scans medical records for patients who have been diagnosed with COVID and fall into a high-risk group. That way clinicians can call or email those most likely to benefit from these drugs.
“It ends up being a bit of a first come, first served strategy,” Dr. Wynia said. “But we also do not have a huge supply coming in each week, so reaching out to the most eligible people when we have the drugs in hand means more privileged patients are less likely to game the system.”
To manage the supply of Evusheld, Timothy Kubal, MD, MBA, and colleagues also reach out to patients most likely to benefit – specifically, those who can’t mount an adequate antibody response after vaccination.
“We screen all of our patients who have been receiving anti-CD20 agents and other chemotherapy agents known to suppress antibody response,” Dr. Kubal, a medical oncologist/hematologist at the Moffitt Institute in Tampa, Florida, said in an interview. “We then test those patients for antibodies and deliver Evusheld if they have no evidence of antibodies.”
Fortunately, in the coming months, distribution of these drugs should improve significantly. Pfizer says it expects to deliver 10 million courses of Paxlovid by the end of June, and another 10 million by the end of September. More than 1 million courses of sotrovimab should be distributed by GlaxoSmithKline through the end of March. And, recently, the Biden administration announced it purchased 1.2 million courses of Evusheld from AstraZeneca.
“Every few weeks, because the COVID picture changes, the demand changes,” said Dr. Louissaint. “With vaccination rates going up and cases going down, fewer patients will need these products.”
Still, the constant barrage of supply shortages over the past 2 years – from COVID tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment early on to COVID vaccines a year later and more recently health care staff and COVID tests once again – has taken its toll.
“We have faced supply challenge after challenge and have had to be creative in each situation,” said Lisa Barbarotta, MSN, APRN, program director of Oncology Education and Clinical Practice at Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Nothing has been easy about this.”
And, Dr. Bloch cautioned, even with broader access to COVID-19 drugs on the horizon, there is still no substitute for vaccination. “Getting vaccinated is the best and first line of defense for most people,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In mid-November, Kevin Billingsley, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., was keeping a close eye on the new COVID variant sweeping across South Africa. Six weeks later, the Omicron variant had become the dominant strain in the U.S. – and the Yale health system was no exception.
“As we entered January, we had a breathtaking rate of infection in our hospital,” said Dr. Billingsley, who also leads clinical care at the Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Some of the newly authorized COVID agents were available but not widely enough to make a clinically meaningful impact to protect all high-risk individuals during this surge.”
That left the team at Yale with difficult decisions about who would receive these treatments and who wouldn’t.
The health system convened a COVID-19 immunocompromised working group to identify which patients should get priority access to one of the promising drugs authorized to treat the infection – the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab and antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir – or the sole available option to prevent it, Evusheld.
“Although clinically sound, none of these decisions have been easy,” Dr. Billingsley told this news organization. “We have done a lot of case-by-case reviewing and a lot of handwringing. Omicron has been a wild ride for us all, and we have been doing the best we can with limited resources.”
‘We’re seeing incredible variability’
The team at Yale is not alone. The restricted supply of COVID-19 treatments has led many oncologists and other experts across the U.S. to create carefully curated lists of their most vulnerable patients.
In late December, the National Institutes of Health published broad criteria to help clinicians prioritize patients most likely to benefit from these therapies. A handful of state health departments, including those in Michigan and Minnesota, established their own standards. Patients with cancer – specifically those with hematologic malignancies and receiving oncology therapies that compromise the immune system – appeared at the top of everyone’s list.
But ultimately individual decisions about who receives these drugs and how they’re allocated fell to institutions.
“Overall, what we’re seeing is incredible variability across the country, because there’s no uniform agreement on what comprises best practices on allocating scarce resources,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “There are so many people at the top of most lists, and the drugs are in such short supply, that there’s no guarantee even those in the top tier will get it.”
This news organization spoke to experts across the country about their experiences accessing these treatments during the Omicron surge and their strategies prioritizing patients with cancer.
Dealing with limited supply
Overall, the limited supply of COVID-19 drugs means not every patient who’s eligible to receive a treatment will get one.
A snapshot of the past 2 weeks, for instance, shows that the count of new infections hit almost 4.3 million, while distribution of the two antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab reached just over 600,000 courses.
Since receiving emergency use authorization in early December, almost 500,000 courses of the pre-exposure prophylactic agent Evusheld – which offers about 6 months of protection for immunocompromised individuals – have been distributed; however, about 7 million adults in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it.
In addition, the distribution of drugs is uneven. The federal government manages the overall distribution to states, but states then decide how to divvy up these allocations to hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers. In Ohio, for instance, the antivirals go to providers who already receive monoclonal antibodies, while in Tennessee, the supply of antiviral agents only goes to Walmart pharmacies.
This strategy, Dr. Wynia explained, can leave clinicians at the mercy of where and how much states decide to allocate to each location. “I’ve heard of some hospitals and health systems in Colorado that aren’t using all they’ve got, but most don’t have nearly enough,” Dr. Wynia said. However, he noted, “some of that is inevitable. We will never get a perfect distribution of these drugs when there is such variable need and demand.”
And, according to Nicolette Louissaint, PhD, MBA, senior vice president of policy and strategic planning at the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, “we can take some comfort that the federal government is actively looking at cases from week to week and working with state and local health departments to see who needs these products, which means the process is constantly being reviewed and adjusted.”
Plus, not every positive COVID-19 case, even among immunocompromised individuals, necessarily warrants treatment. “If, for instance, an individual with cancer has a mild case of COVID-19, their provider may not deem it necessary for them to receive treatment,” Dr. Louissaint noted.
Still, given the limited and unpredictable supply, “we have had to be thoughtful about who gets these drugs,” said Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD, president of the Levine Cancer Institute, part of the 40-hospital Atrium Health system in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Dr. Raghavan said the highest priority goes to patients with hematologic malignancies, those receiving or coming off chemotherapy or experiencing myelosuppression and immune paresis, as well as those who have undergone organ transplants. Age and other comorbidities, such as diabetes or obesity, play into the lineup as well.
To further hone their priority list, the Levine Cancer Institute has implemented a cancer-centered Hospital at Home initiative. The program includes 40 oncology nurse navigators who routinely screen and score all cancer patients who test positive for COVID-19 by their symptoms and risk factors. For a time-sensitive treatment like Paxlovid, this close monitoring allows patients with COVID to access the pills within 5 days of symptom onset.
Ultimately, “the decision regarding who gets these drugs is [made] by a team to overcome any risk of personal bias, and some of it just comes down to the interface between clinical judgment and available data,” Dr. Raghavan told this news organization. “Although we’d like to have more COVID drugs available and fewer patients with COVID, we have been able to get adequate supplies for our most at-risk patients.”
Like Dr. Raghavan, Karen Bloch, MD, MPH, the medical director for the COVID Infusion Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), said the clinic has had to be highly selective about which patients would benefit most from the COVID monoclonal antibodies. For patients with cancer, her team prioritizes individuals who would be least able to develop antibodies through vaccination or natural infection – which includes patients with B cell malignancies, acute myeloid leukemia, or multiple myeloma receiving active treatment, as well as those who recently received an allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant.
“Since our criteria for treatment with therapies such as sotrovimab and Evusheld are pretty stringent, we have had sufficient supply to treat those who meet our internal ‘category 1’ predetermined criteria,” said Dr. Bloch, professor of medicine and associate division director for clinical affairs at VUMC, Nashville. “More recently, as the supply chain has begun to open up, we’ve been able to loosen our criteria for sotrovimab, though not for Evusheld yet.”
The Yale team described a similar evolution. “Initially, only a small subset of oncology patients could get these drugs,” said Osama (Sam) Abdelghany, PharmD, MHA, associate director of Oncology Pharmacy Services at Smilow Cancer Hospital. But as the caseload has diminished, Dr. Abdelghany noted, “we have been able to reach many more patients with COVID-19.”
An equitable system?
Dr. Wynia, who has written many reports on crisis standards of care, has spent thousands of hours delving into the ethics of allocating scarce resources during a disaster.
A core problem arises when there are too many people who need a scarce resource and no way of differentiating among them.
In response to the limited supply of COVID-19 treatments, some institutions, such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, have created a lottery system. Others, such as Johns Hopkins Medicine, have opted for first come, first served. Each strategy comes with caveats.
“First come, first served prioritization may be quicker, but it gives more well-resourced people an advantage and lends itself to people abusing the system or exacerbating existing disparities,” Dr. Wynia said.
While a lottery system may be more equitable, this strategy often comes at the price of efficiency. “The practicality of doing a lottery when you have to make a decision about whether or not to treat the patient sitting in front of you comes with its own challenges,” Dr. Wynia said.
At the University of Colorado, he explained, the health center constantly scans medical records for patients who have been diagnosed with COVID and fall into a high-risk group. That way clinicians can call or email those most likely to benefit from these drugs.
“It ends up being a bit of a first come, first served strategy,” Dr. Wynia said. “But we also do not have a huge supply coming in each week, so reaching out to the most eligible people when we have the drugs in hand means more privileged patients are less likely to game the system.”
To manage the supply of Evusheld, Timothy Kubal, MD, MBA, and colleagues also reach out to patients most likely to benefit – specifically, those who can’t mount an adequate antibody response after vaccination.
“We screen all of our patients who have been receiving anti-CD20 agents and other chemotherapy agents known to suppress antibody response,” Dr. Kubal, a medical oncologist/hematologist at the Moffitt Institute in Tampa, Florida, said in an interview. “We then test those patients for antibodies and deliver Evusheld if they have no evidence of antibodies.”
Fortunately, in the coming months, distribution of these drugs should improve significantly. Pfizer says it expects to deliver 10 million courses of Paxlovid by the end of June, and another 10 million by the end of September. More than 1 million courses of sotrovimab should be distributed by GlaxoSmithKline through the end of March. And, recently, the Biden administration announced it purchased 1.2 million courses of Evusheld from AstraZeneca.
“Every few weeks, because the COVID picture changes, the demand changes,” said Dr. Louissaint. “With vaccination rates going up and cases going down, fewer patients will need these products.”
Still, the constant barrage of supply shortages over the past 2 years – from COVID tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment early on to COVID vaccines a year later and more recently health care staff and COVID tests once again – has taken its toll.
“We have faced supply challenge after challenge and have had to be creative in each situation,” said Lisa Barbarotta, MSN, APRN, program director of Oncology Education and Clinical Practice at Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Nothing has been easy about this.”
And, Dr. Bloch cautioned, even with broader access to COVID-19 drugs on the horizon, there is still no substitute for vaccination. “Getting vaccinated is the best and first line of defense for most people,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Organ transplantation: Unvaccinated need not apply
I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.
And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.
A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.
Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets
Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”
The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”
But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”
The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.
I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.
Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”
They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”
In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.
Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.
The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.
That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.
The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.
University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 
As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”
Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.
To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.
The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.
Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
Transplant denial is nothing new
People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.
Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.
Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.
We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.
Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.
And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.
Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.
And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.
A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.
Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets
Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”
The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”
But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”
The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.
I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.
Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”
They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”
In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.
Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.
The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.
That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.
The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.
University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination.
As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”
Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.
To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.
The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.
Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
Transplant denial is nothing new
People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.
Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.
Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.
We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.
Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.
And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.
Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.
And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.
A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.
Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets
Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”
The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”
But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”
The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.
I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.
Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”
They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”
In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.
Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.
The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.
That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.
The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.
University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination.
As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”
Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.
To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.
The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.
Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
Transplant denial is nothing new
People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.
Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.
Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.
We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.
Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.
And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.
Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New stroke risk score developed for COVID patients
Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.
“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.
The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.
The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.
Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.
Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.
The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.
Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:
- history of stroke
- no fever at the time of hospital admission
- no history of pulmonary disease
- high white blood cell count
- history of hypertension
- high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission
That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.
A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.
In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”
The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.
“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”
The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.
A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.
Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.
“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.
Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.
Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.
Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”
The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”
He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”
Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”
“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.
This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.
“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”
The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.
“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.
The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.
The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.
Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.
Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.
The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.
Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:
- history of stroke
- no fever at the time of hospital admission
- no history of pulmonary disease
- high white blood cell count
- history of hypertension
- high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission
That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.
A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.
In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”
The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.
“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”
The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.
A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.
Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.
“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.
Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.
Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.
Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”
The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”
He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”
Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”
“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.
This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.
“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”
The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.
“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.
The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.
The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.
Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.
Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.
The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.
Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:
- history of stroke
- no fever at the time of hospital admission
- no history of pulmonary disease
- high white blood cell count
- history of hypertension
- high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission
That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.
A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.
In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”
The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.
“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”
The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.
A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.
Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.
“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.
Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.
Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.
Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”
The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”
He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”
Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”
“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.
This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.
“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”
The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Breakthrough COVID-19 milder in vaccinated patients with IBD
Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.
In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.
Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.
“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.
Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).
They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).
The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.
“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
SECURE-IBD data
The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.
The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).
Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.
The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.
A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
Lower severity
COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.
COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.
There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).
There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.
As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.
As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).
Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.
Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.
The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.
Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.
In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.
Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.
“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.
Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).
They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).
The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.
“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
SECURE-IBD data
The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.
The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).
Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.
The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.
A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
Lower severity
COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.
COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.
There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).
There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.
As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.
As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).
Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.
Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.
The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.
Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.
In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.
Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.
“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.
Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).
They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).
The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.
“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
SECURE-IBD data
The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.
The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).
Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.
The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.
A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
Lower severity
COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.
COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.
There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).
There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.
As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.
As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).
Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.
Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.
The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM THE CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
COVID vaccines open rifts between parents, children
The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.
When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
Heavy toll on teens
Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.
“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”
In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.
“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”
Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.
Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.
A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization.
California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.
“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”
Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children
Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.
“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.
Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.
Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”
If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.
When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
Heavy toll on teens
Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.
“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”
In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.
“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”
Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.
Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.
A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization.
California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.
“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”
Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children
Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.
“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.
Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.
Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”
If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.
When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
Heavy toll on teens
Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.
“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”
In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.
“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”
Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.
Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.
A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization.
California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.
“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”
Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children
Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.
“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.
Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.
Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”
If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.