Covid ICYMI

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?

Answer: Medical knowledge. 

In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside. 

This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option? 

Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner. 

The Backdrop

Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly. 

Pre-pandemic efforts

In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week. 

Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall. 

Barriers to widespread implementation

Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training. 

Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error. 

Proposed solutions

Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary. 

Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020. 

The Trigger

With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate. 

Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.      

Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.

Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies

Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.

Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions

Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.  

Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations

Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training). 

Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction

Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation. 

Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation

The Evidence

Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME. 

Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.

A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms. 

In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online. 

Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.

In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well. 

In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred. 

CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.

Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned. 

However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred. 

Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.      

The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.   

Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?

Answer: Medical knowledge. 

In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside. 

This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option? 

Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner. 

The Backdrop

Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly. 

Pre-pandemic efforts

In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week. 

Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall. 

Barriers to widespread implementation

Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training. 

Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error. 

Proposed solutions

Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary. 

Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020. 

The Trigger

With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate. 

Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.      

Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.

Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies

Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.

Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions

Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.  

Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations

Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training). 

Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction

Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation. 

Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation

The Evidence

Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME. 

Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.

A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms. 

In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online. 

Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.

In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well. 

In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred. 

CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.

Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned. 

However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred. 

Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.      

The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.   

Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?

Answer: Medical knowledge. 

In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside. 

This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option? 

Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner. 

The Backdrop

Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly. 

Pre-pandemic efforts

In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week. 

Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall. 

Barriers to widespread implementation

Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training. 

Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error. 

Proposed solutions

Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary. 

Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020. 

The Trigger

With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate. 

Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.      

Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.

Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies

Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.

Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions

Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.  

Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations

Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training). 

Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction

Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation. 

Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation

The Evidence

Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME. 

Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.

A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms. 

In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online. 

Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.

In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well. 

In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred. 

CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.

Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned. 

However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred. 

Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.      

The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.   

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) is associated with a reduced risk for death or hospitalization in the most extremely vulnerable patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In a cohort study from British Columbia that included nearly 7,000 patients with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 2.5% reduction in risk for death or emergency hospitalization in clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) patients who were severely immunocompromised. No significant benefit was observed in patients who were not immunocompromised.

“This finding could help substantially limit unnecessary use of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in older, otherwise healthy individuals,” lead author Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, associate professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization. “Another finding that was surprising and might help place the role of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in context is that even in severely immunocompromised individuals who did not take [the drug], the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 was less than 4% in our study population.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Who benefits?

The investigators analyzed medical records for 6,866 patients in British Columbia (median age, 70 years; 57% women) who presented between Feb. 1, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023. Eligible patients belonged to one of four higher-risk groups who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination.

Two groups included CEV patients who were severely (CEV1) or moderately (CEV2) immunocompromised. The CEV3 group was not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group included higher-risk patients who were not in one of the other groups, such as unvaccinated patients older than age 70 years.

The investigators matched treated patients to untreated patients in the same vulnerability group according to age, sex, and month of infection. The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.

Treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome, compared with no treatment, for patients in the CEV1 (risk difference, −2.5%) and CEV2 (RD, −1.7%) groups. In the CEV3 group, the RD of −1.3% was not statistically significant. In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the result was not statistically significant.

The results were “robust across sex and older vs. younger age,” the authors note. “No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.”

The combination of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was approved for use in Canada based on interim efficacy and safety data from the Evaluation of Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial, said Dr. Dormuth.

British Columbia’s eligibility criteria for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir coverage differ substantially from the criteria for participants in the EPIC-HR trial, he noted. Those patients were unvaccinated, had no natural immunity from a previous COVID-19 infection, and were infected with COVID-19 variants that were different from those now circulating. The current study was prompted by the need to look at a broader population of individuals in British Columbia with varying risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.

Before the study, a common view was that patients aged 70 and older would benefit from the drug, said Dr. Dormuth. “Our study, which accounted for medical conditions related to an individual’s vulnerability to complications, showed that older age on its own was not a reason to use nirmatrelvir and ritonavir once relevant medical conditions were taken into consideration.”

The researchers are working on a study to identify with greater specificity which comorbid conditions are most associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectiveness, he added. “It could be that a relatively small number of conditions can be used to identify most individuals who would benefit from the drug.”
 

‘Signal toward benefit’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Abhijit Duggal, MD, vice chair of critical care at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in this study, said, “I’m always very wary when we look at observational data and we start saying the effectiveness is not really as high as was seen in other studies. We are seeing an effect with all these studies that seems to be in the right direction.

“Having said that,” he added, “is the effect going to be potentially more in patients at higher risk? Absolutely. I think these postmarket studies are really showing that after vaccination, if someone does get infected, this is a secondary option available to us that can prevent progression of the disease, which would likely be more severe in immunocompromised patients.”

Dr. Duggal was a coinvestigator on a recent study of more than 68,000 patients that showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in nonhospitalized patients infected with the Omicron variant, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions.

“In all groups, there was a signal toward benefit,” said Dr. Duggal. “These studies tell us that these drugs do remain valid options. But their use needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis with patients we feel are deteriorating or at a higher risk because of underlying disease processes.”

The study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Dr. Dormuth and Dr. Duggal report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) is associated with a reduced risk for death or hospitalization in the most extremely vulnerable patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In a cohort study from British Columbia that included nearly 7,000 patients with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 2.5% reduction in risk for death or emergency hospitalization in clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) patients who were severely immunocompromised. No significant benefit was observed in patients who were not immunocompromised.

“This finding could help substantially limit unnecessary use of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in older, otherwise healthy individuals,” lead author Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, associate professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization. “Another finding that was surprising and might help place the role of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in context is that even in severely immunocompromised individuals who did not take [the drug], the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 was less than 4% in our study population.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Who benefits?

The investigators analyzed medical records for 6,866 patients in British Columbia (median age, 70 years; 57% women) who presented between Feb. 1, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023. Eligible patients belonged to one of four higher-risk groups who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination.

Two groups included CEV patients who were severely (CEV1) or moderately (CEV2) immunocompromised. The CEV3 group was not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group included higher-risk patients who were not in one of the other groups, such as unvaccinated patients older than age 70 years.

The investigators matched treated patients to untreated patients in the same vulnerability group according to age, sex, and month of infection. The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.

Treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome, compared with no treatment, for patients in the CEV1 (risk difference, −2.5%) and CEV2 (RD, −1.7%) groups. In the CEV3 group, the RD of −1.3% was not statistically significant. In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the result was not statistically significant.

The results were “robust across sex and older vs. younger age,” the authors note. “No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.”

The combination of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was approved for use in Canada based on interim efficacy and safety data from the Evaluation of Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial, said Dr. Dormuth.

British Columbia’s eligibility criteria for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir coverage differ substantially from the criteria for participants in the EPIC-HR trial, he noted. Those patients were unvaccinated, had no natural immunity from a previous COVID-19 infection, and were infected with COVID-19 variants that were different from those now circulating. The current study was prompted by the need to look at a broader population of individuals in British Columbia with varying risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.

Before the study, a common view was that patients aged 70 and older would benefit from the drug, said Dr. Dormuth. “Our study, which accounted for medical conditions related to an individual’s vulnerability to complications, showed that older age on its own was not a reason to use nirmatrelvir and ritonavir once relevant medical conditions were taken into consideration.”

The researchers are working on a study to identify with greater specificity which comorbid conditions are most associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectiveness, he added. “It could be that a relatively small number of conditions can be used to identify most individuals who would benefit from the drug.”
 

‘Signal toward benefit’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Abhijit Duggal, MD, vice chair of critical care at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in this study, said, “I’m always very wary when we look at observational data and we start saying the effectiveness is not really as high as was seen in other studies. We are seeing an effect with all these studies that seems to be in the right direction.

“Having said that,” he added, “is the effect going to be potentially more in patients at higher risk? Absolutely. I think these postmarket studies are really showing that after vaccination, if someone does get infected, this is a secondary option available to us that can prevent progression of the disease, which would likely be more severe in immunocompromised patients.”

Dr. Duggal was a coinvestigator on a recent study of more than 68,000 patients that showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in nonhospitalized patients infected with the Omicron variant, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions.

“In all groups, there was a signal toward benefit,” said Dr. Duggal. “These studies tell us that these drugs do remain valid options. But their use needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis with patients we feel are deteriorating or at a higher risk because of underlying disease processes.”

The study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Dr. Dormuth and Dr. Duggal report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) is associated with a reduced risk for death or hospitalization in the most extremely vulnerable patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In a cohort study from British Columbia that included nearly 7,000 patients with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a 2.5% reduction in risk for death or emergency hospitalization in clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) patients who were severely immunocompromised. No significant benefit was observed in patients who were not immunocompromised.

“This finding could help substantially limit unnecessary use of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in older, otherwise healthy individuals,” lead author Colin R. Dormuth, ScD, associate professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization. “Another finding that was surprising and might help place the role of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir in context is that even in severely immunocompromised individuals who did not take [the drug], the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 was less than 4% in our study population.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Who benefits?

The investigators analyzed medical records for 6,866 patients in British Columbia (median age, 70 years; 57% women) who presented between Feb. 1, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023. Eligible patients belonged to one of four higher-risk groups who received priority for COVID-19 vaccination.

Two groups included CEV patients who were severely (CEV1) or moderately (CEV2) immunocompromised. The CEV3 group was not immunocompromised but had medical conditions associated with a high risk for complications from COVID-19. A fourth expanded eligibility (EXEL) group included higher-risk patients who were not in one of the other groups, such as unvaccinated patients older than age 70 years.

The investigators matched treated patients to untreated patients in the same vulnerability group according to age, sex, and month of infection. The primary outcome was death from any cause or emergency hospitalization with COVID-19 within 28 days.

Treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in the primary outcome, compared with no treatment, for patients in the CEV1 (risk difference, −2.5%) and CEV2 (RD, −1.7%) groups. In the CEV3 group, the RD of −1.3% was not statistically significant. In the EXEL group, treatment was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome (RD, 1.0%), but the result was not statistically significant.

The results were “robust across sex and older vs. younger age,” the authors note. “No reduction in the primary outcome was observed in lower-risk individuals, including those aged 70 years or older without serious comorbidities.”

The combination of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was approved for use in Canada based on interim efficacy and safety data from the Evaluation of Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial, said Dr. Dormuth.

British Columbia’s eligibility criteria for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir coverage differ substantially from the criteria for participants in the EPIC-HR trial, he noted. Those patients were unvaccinated, had no natural immunity from a previous COVID-19 infection, and were infected with COVID-19 variants that were different from those now circulating. The current study was prompted by the need to look at a broader population of individuals in British Columbia with varying risks of complications from COVID-19 infection.

Before the study, a common view was that patients aged 70 and older would benefit from the drug, said Dr. Dormuth. “Our study, which accounted for medical conditions related to an individual’s vulnerability to complications, showed that older age on its own was not a reason to use nirmatrelvir and ritonavir once relevant medical conditions were taken into consideration.”

The researchers are working on a study to identify with greater specificity which comorbid conditions are most associated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectiveness, he added. “It could be that a relatively small number of conditions can be used to identify most individuals who would benefit from the drug.”
 

‘Signal toward benefit’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Abhijit Duggal, MD, vice chair of critical care at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in this study, said, “I’m always very wary when we look at observational data and we start saying the effectiveness is not really as high as was seen in other studies. We are seeing an effect with all these studies that seems to be in the right direction.

“Having said that,” he added, “is the effect going to be potentially more in patients at higher risk? Absolutely. I think these postmarket studies are really showing that after vaccination, if someone does get infected, this is a secondary option available to us that can prevent progression of the disease, which would likely be more severe in immunocompromised patients.”

Dr. Duggal was a coinvestigator on a recent study of more than 68,000 patients that showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir was associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in nonhospitalized patients infected with the Omicron variant, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions.

“In all groups, there was a signal toward benefit,” said Dr. Duggal. “These studies tell us that these drugs do remain valid options. But their use needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis with patients we feel are deteriorating or at a higher risk because of underlying disease processes.”

The study was supported by funding from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. Dr. Dormuth and Dr. Duggal report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Research from South Korea provides additional evidence for the connection between COVID-19 and an increased risk for autoimmune conditions post infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this retrospective study, researchers identified 354,527 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from Oct. 8, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021.
• Researchers compared the COVID-19 group with 6,134,940 healthy individuals who had no evidence of COVID-19 to quantify the risk for autoimmune and autoinflammatory connective tissue disorders.
• Patients were followed until diagnosis, death, or end of study period (Dec. 31, 2021).

TAKEAWAY:

• Risks for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, Crohn’s disease, and sarcoidosis were higher in the COVID-19 group.
• Patients with more severe COVID-19 (admitted to the ICU) were at greater risk for many autoimmune conditions, including alopecia totalis, psoriasis, vitiligo, and vasculitis.
•  

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results emphasize the need to focus on managing not only the acute stages of COVID-19 itself but also autoimmune diseases as complications of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sung Ha Lim, MD, of Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea, was the first author of the study, published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and was composed almost exclusively of individuals from a single ethnicity. The study could have included individuals with COVID-19 in the control group who did not undergo PCR testing. The analysis did not include detailed information on each patient, including genetic information, that could have contributed to autoimmune disease risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a fund from the research program of the Korea Medical Institute and by grants from the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Research from South Korea provides additional evidence for the connection between COVID-19 and an increased risk for autoimmune conditions post infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this retrospective study, researchers identified 354,527 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from Oct. 8, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021.
• Researchers compared the COVID-19 group with 6,134,940 healthy individuals who had no evidence of COVID-19 to quantify the risk for autoimmune and autoinflammatory connective tissue disorders.
• Patients were followed until diagnosis, death, or end of study period (Dec. 31, 2021).

TAKEAWAY:

• Risks for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, Crohn’s disease, and sarcoidosis were higher in the COVID-19 group.
• Patients with more severe COVID-19 (admitted to the ICU) were at greater risk for many autoimmune conditions, including alopecia totalis, psoriasis, vitiligo, and vasculitis.
•  

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results emphasize the need to focus on managing not only the acute stages of COVID-19 itself but also autoimmune diseases as complications of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sung Ha Lim, MD, of Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea, was the first author of the study, published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and was composed almost exclusively of individuals from a single ethnicity. The study could have included individuals with COVID-19 in the control group who did not undergo PCR testing. The analysis did not include detailed information on each patient, including genetic information, that could have contributed to autoimmune disease risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a fund from the research program of the Korea Medical Institute and by grants from the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Research from South Korea provides additional evidence for the connection between COVID-19 and an increased risk for autoimmune conditions post infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this retrospective study, researchers identified 354,527 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from Oct. 8, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021.
• Researchers compared the COVID-19 group with 6,134,940 healthy individuals who had no evidence of COVID-19 to quantify the risk for autoimmune and autoinflammatory connective tissue disorders.
• Patients were followed until diagnosis, death, or end of study period (Dec. 31, 2021).

TAKEAWAY:

• Risks for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, Crohn’s disease, and sarcoidosis were higher in the COVID-19 group.
• Patients with more severe COVID-19 (admitted to the ICU) were at greater risk for many autoimmune conditions, including alopecia totalis, psoriasis, vitiligo, and vasculitis.
•  

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results emphasize the need to focus on managing not only the acute stages of COVID-19 itself but also autoimmune diseases as complications of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Sung Ha Lim, MD, of Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea, was the first author of the study, published in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and was composed almost exclusively of individuals from a single ethnicity. The study could have included individuals with COVID-19 in the control group who did not undergo PCR testing. The analysis did not include detailed information on each patient, including genetic information, that could have contributed to autoimmune disease risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a fund from the research program of the Korea Medical Institute and by grants from the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, the Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.