Infectious Disease Practitioner

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) announced early closure of its phase 2/3 trial of a 6-month multidrug regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) because an independent data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the drug combination in the study regimen was superior to current therapy, according to a press release.

The trial, called TB PRACTECAL, compared the current local standard of care with a 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin. The interim analysis included 242 patients and the randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sites in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan.

The preliminary data will be shared with the World Health Organization soon and will also be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. If it withstands further reviews, as is anticipated, the trial would support the first solely oral regimen for MDR-TB.

In 2019, an estimated 465,000 people developed MDR-TB and 182,000 died. The global burden of TB at that time was about 10 million new cases, many with coexisting HIV.

Current treatment for MDR-TB lasts 9-20 months and is complicated by the need for painful shots and toxic antibiotics. Side effects can include psychiatric problems from quinolones, isoniazid, ethambutol, or cycloserine; deafness from aminoglycosides; and bone marrow suppression from linezolid, among other toxicities.

It’s hoped that the shorter regimen will reduce toxicity and improve patient compliance. Poor adherence to treatment is a major driver of further drug resistance. Current regimens require up to 20 pills per day as well as daily injections.

In a prepared statement from MSF, David Moore, MD, MSc, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a member of the TB-PRACTECAL trial’s steering committee, concluded: “The findings could transform the way we treat patients with drug-resistant forms of TB worldwide, who have been neglected for too long.”

This good news is particularly welcome as, in the time of COVID-19, “an estimated 1.4 million fewer people received care for tuberculosis in 2020 than in 2019,” according to the WHO. The drop, an overall 21% reduction in patients beginning treatment, ranged as high as 42% in Indonesia.

Although awaiting complete data, Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD, associate director of the McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, shares Dr. Moore’s enthusiasm. In an interview, Dr. Pai compared MDR-TB with extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB).

“I’m excited about the possibility that these trial results might help shorten MDR-TB treatment to 6 months,” said Dr. Pai. “That will be a huge relief to all patients battling drug-resistant disease. The 6-month BPaL regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) regimen works well in XDR-TB. So, I would expect the TB PRACTECAL regimen with one added drug (moxifloxacin) to work well in MDR-TB, which is less severe than XDR-TB. Between these two regimens, if we can bring down MDR and XDR treatment to 6 months, all oral, that would be a huge advance.”

The expense of bedaquiline has been a long-standing concern in the global health community. Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has reduced the price to $340 per 6-month treatment course for more than 135 eligible low- and middle-income countries.

Previously, the tiered pricing structure was different for low-, middle-, and high-income countries (U.S. $900, $3,000, and $30,000, respectively). “The global TB community has asked Janssen to drop the price of bedaquiline to a level no higher than $32 per month – double the price at which researchers estimated bedaquiline could be sold for a profit,” according to the Treatment Action Group A major source of contention over pricing has been that there has been considerable public investment in the drug›s development.

Dr. Pai concluded: “Bedaquiline is likely the most important drug in both 6-month regimens. We need to work harder to make bedaquiline, an excellent drug, more affordable and accessible.”

While the full data is not yet publicly available, TB PRACTECAL was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. The fact that enrollment was discontinued early by the DSMB suggests the efficacy data was compelling and that this completely oral regimen will become the standard of care.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil and of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine develop a strong immune response and produce antibodies that can transfer to the fetus through the placenta and to newborns through breast milk, according to a prospective cohort study published March 25 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The findings revealed that the antibody response to vaccination in this cohort was greater than that from a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. Though the researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, it’s not yet known how much protection these antibodies might provide to newborns.

“The presence of neutralizing antibody transfer in nearly all cords, and improved transfer with increased time from vaccination, points to the promise of mRNA vaccine–induced delivery of immunity to neonates,” wrote Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynecology, and colleagues. “Transfer would perhaps be optimized if vaccination is administered earlier during gestation, though this needs to be directly examined in future studies.”

The researchers tracked 84 pregnant women, 31 lactating women, and 16 nonpregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The titers of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, receptor binding domain (RBD), and S1 and S2 components of the spike were measured in the 131 participants’ blood and in the lactating women’s breast milk four times: at baseline, when they received their second vaccine dose, at 2-6 weeks after their second dose, and at delivery for the 13 women who delivered during the study period.

The study population included health care workers and was predominantly White and non-Hispanic. In addition, two pregnant women, two lactating women, and one nonpregnant woman in the study had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Most of the pregnant women received the vaccine in their second (46%) or third (40%) trimester. The women across all three groups – pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant – experienced similar side effects from the each dose of the vaccine, including fever/chills in 32% of the pregnant women and half the nonpregnant women after the second dose.

Titers induced by the vaccine were similar across the pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women, and titers did not differ based on the trimester when women received the vaccine. The researchers then compared the titers from the vaccine recipients to titers of 37 pregnant women drawn 4-12 weeks after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine-induced titers were significantly greater than those measured in the women who had a natural infection during pregnancy (P < .001).

The researchers identified IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in the breast milk samples, including a boost in IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose from baseline. “However, whether these antibodies were transferred efficiently to infants remained unclear,” the authors noted.

The researchers found vaccine-induced antibodies in all 10 umbilical cord blood samples tested, all but one of which had been exposed to two doses of the vaccine.

“The cord with the lowest spike- and RBD-specific IgG belonged to a mother who delivered between the first and second vaccine doses and had received her first vaccine dose 17 days prior to delivery, suggesting that 2 doses may be essential to optimize humoral immune transfer to the neonate,” the authors wrote. “Based on what is known about other vaccines, the amount of maternal IgG transferred across the placenta to the cord is likely to differ by trimester of vaccination.”

Although umbilical cord sera had lower titers of neutralizing antibodies than found in maternal sera, the difference was not significant (median interquartile range 52.3 vs. 104.7, P = .05). The two cord blood samples without neutralizing antibodies came from a woman who had not had the second dose and a woman who received the second dose 1 week before delivery.

“These data provide a compelling argument that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce similar humoral immunity in pregnant and lactating women as in the nonpregnant population,” the authors wrote. “These data do not elucidate potential risks to the fetus.”

While the study provides evidence about the immune response induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnant, it leaves other questions unanswered, said Kevin A. Ault, MD, professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“The important thing about these findings is that the COVID vaccines are immunogenic in pregnant women. There may be a benefit to the newborns because antibodies are passed on through the placenta,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “The main questions that remain are safety of the vaccine during pregnancy and effectiveness of the vaccine during pregnancy.”

He said he expects to see more studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Despite more than 73,600 infections and 80 deaths from COVID-19 in people who were pregnant, none of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials included pregnant or lactating participants.

“This is an important initial study to confirm the antibody generation from mRNA vaccination in pregnant women, and the passage of antibody via cord blood and breast milk,” said Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Washington, Seattle, who specializes in maternal immunization. “Further studies are important to look at the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and whether it influences the level of antibody passed to the fetus.”

Though this study is not a safety study, it “does not show increased expected vaccine reactions, such as aches, pains, and fever, in pregnant versus nonpregnant patients,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “It is not able to evaluate pregnancy outcome data, but it does allow pregnant women being vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines to know that the vaccine is generating protection for them, and the protection is being passed to the fetus in utero via cordblood and to the infant via breast milk.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health along with the Gates Foundation, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR), the Musk Foundation, the Ragon Institute of MGH and MIT, and Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Lead author Dr. Gray has consulted for Illumina, BillionToOne, and Aetion, and three other authors have financial or scientific/medical advising connections to Alba Therapeutics, NextCure, Viome, Systems Seromyx, and Mirvie. Dr. Ault and Dr. Eckert had no disclosures.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine develop a strong immune response and produce antibodies that can transfer to the fetus through the placenta and to newborns through breast milk, according to a prospective cohort study published March 25 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The findings revealed that the antibody response to vaccination in this cohort was greater than that from a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. Though the researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, it’s not yet known how much protection these antibodies might provide to newborns.

“The presence of neutralizing antibody transfer in nearly all cords, and improved transfer with increased time from vaccination, points to the promise of mRNA vaccine–induced delivery of immunity to neonates,” wrote Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynecology, and colleagues. “Transfer would perhaps be optimized if vaccination is administered earlier during gestation, though this needs to be directly examined in future studies.”

The researchers tracked 84 pregnant women, 31 lactating women, and 16 nonpregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The titers of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, receptor binding domain (RBD), and S1 and S2 components of the spike were measured in the 131 participants’ blood and in the lactating women’s breast milk four times: at baseline, when they received their second vaccine dose, at 2-6 weeks after their second dose, and at delivery for the 13 women who delivered during the study period.

The study population included health care workers and was predominantly White and non-Hispanic. In addition, two pregnant women, two lactating women, and one nonpregnant woman in the study had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Most of the pregnant women received the vaccine in their second (46%) or third (40%) trimester. The women across all three groups – pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant – experienced similar side effects from the each dose of the vaccine, including fever/chills in 32% of the pregnant women and half the nonpregnant women after the second dose.

Titers induced by the vaccine were similar across the pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women, and titers did not differ based on the trimester when women received the vaccine. The researchers then compared the titers from the vaccine recipients to titers of 37 pregnant women drawn 4-12 weeks after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine-induced titers were significantly greater than those measured in the women who had a natural infection during pregnancy (P < .001).

The researchers identified IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in the breast milk samples, including a boost in IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose from baseline. “However, whether these antibodies were transferred efficiently to infants remained unclear,” the authors noted.

The researchers found vaccine-induced antibodies in all 10 umbilical cord blood samples tested, all but one of which had been exposed to two doses of the vaccine.

“The cord with the lowest spike- and RBD-specific IgG belonged to a mother who delivered between the first and second vaccine doses and had received her first vaccine dose 17 days prior to delivery, suggesting that 2 doses may be essential to optimize humoral immune transfer to the neonate,” the authors wrote. “Based on what is known about other vaccines, the amount of maternal IgG transferred across the placenta to the cord is likely to differ by trimester of vaccination.”

Although umbilical cord sera had lower titers of neutralizing antibodies than found in maternal sera, the difference was not significant (median interquartile range 52.3 vs. 104.7, P = .05). The two cord blood samples without neutralizing antibodies came from a woman who had not had the second dose and a woman who received the second dose 1 week before delivery.

“These data provide a compelling argument that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce similar humoral immunity in pregnant and lactating women as in the nonpregnant population,” the authors wrote. “These data do not elucidate potential risks to the fetus.”

While the study provides evidence about the immune response induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnant, it leaves other questions unanswered, said Kevin A. Ault, MD, professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“The important thing about these findings is that the COVID vaccines are immunogenic in pregnant women. There may be a benefit to the newborns because antibodies are passed on through the placenta,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “The main questions that remain are safety of the vaccine during pregnancy and effectiveness of the vaccine during pregnancy.”

He said he expects to see more studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Despite more than 73,600 infections and 80 deaths from COVID-19 in people who were pregnant, none of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials included pregnant or lactating participants.

“This is an important initial study to confirm the antibody generation from mRNA vaccination in pregnant women, and the passage of antibody via cord blood and breast milk,” said Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Washington, Seattle, who specializes in maternal immunization. “Further studies are important to look at the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and whether it influences the level of antibody passed to the fetus.”

Though this study is not a safety study, it “does not show increased expected vaccine reactions, such as aches, pains, and fever, in pregnant versus nonpregnant patients,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “It is not able to evaluate pregnancy outcome data, but it does allow pregnant women being vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines to know that the vaccine is generating protection for them, and the protection is being passed to the fetus in utero via cordblood and to the infant via breast milk.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health along with the Gates Foundation, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR), the Musk Foundation, the Ragon Institute of MGH and MIT, and Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Lead author Dr. Gray has consulted for Illumina, BillionToOne, and Aetion, and three other authors have financial or scientific/medical advising connections to Alba Therapeutics, NextCure, Viome, Systems Seromyx, and Mirvie. Dr. Ault and Dr. Eckert had no disclosures.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine develop a strong immune response and produce antibodies that can transfer to the fetus through the placenta and to newborns through breast milk, according to a prospective cohort study published March 25 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The findings revealed that the antibody response to vaccination in this cohort was greater than that from a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. Though the researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, it’s not yet known how much protection these antibodies might provide to newborns.

“The presence of neutralizing antibody transfer in nearly all cords, and improved transfer with increased time from vaccination, points to the promise of mRNA vaccine–induced delivery of immunity to neonates,” wrote Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynecology, and colleagues. “Transfer would perhaps be optimized if vaccination is administered earlier during gestation, though this needs to be directly examined in future studies.”

The researchers tracked 84 pregnant women, 31 lactating women, and 16 nonpregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The titers of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, receptor binding domain (RBD), and S1 and S2 components of the spike were measured in the 131 participants’ blood and in the lactating women’s breast milk four times: at baseline, when they received their second vaccine dose, at 2-6 weeks after their second dose, and at delivery for the 13 women who delivered during the study period.

The study population included health care workers and was predominantly White and non-Hispanic. In addition, two pregnant women, two lactating women, and one nonpregnant woman in the study had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Most of the pregnant women received the vaccine in their second (46%) or third (40%) trimester. The women across all three groups – pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant – experienced similar side effects from the each dose of the vaccine, including fever/chills in 32% of the pregnant women and half the nonpregnant women after the second dose.

Titers induced by the vaccine were similar across the pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women, and titers did not differ based on the trimester when women received the vaccine. The researchers then compared the titers from the vaccine recipients to titers of 37 pregnant women drawn 4-12 weeks after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine-induced titers were significantly greater than those measured in the women who had a natural infection during pregnancy (P < .001).

The researchers identified IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in the breast milk samples, including a boost in IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose from baseline. “However, whether these antibodies were transferred efficiently to infants remained unclear,” the authors noted.

The researchers found vaccine-induced antibodies in all 10 umbilical cord blood samples tested, all but one of which had been exposed to two doses of the vaccine.

“The cord with the lowest spike- and RBD-specific IgG belonged to a mother who delivered between the first and second vaccine doses and had received her first vaccine dose 17 days prior to delivery, suggesting that 2 doses may be essential to optimize humoral immune transfer to the neonate,” the authors wrote. “Based on what is known about other vaccines, the amount of maternal IgG transferred across the placenta to the cord is likely to differ by trimester of vaccination.”

Although umbilical cord sera had lower titers of neutralizing antibodies than found in maternal sera, the difference was not significant (median interquartile range 52.3 vs. 104.7, P = .05). The two cord blood samples without neutralizing antibodies came from a woman who had not had the second dose and a woman who received the second dose 1 week before delivery.

“These data provide a compelling argument that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce similar humoral immunity in pregnant and lactating women as in the nonpregnant population,” the authors wrote. “These data do not elucidate potential risks to the fetus.”

While the study provides evidence about the immune response induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnant, it leaves other questions unanswered, said Kevin A. Ault, MD, professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“The important thing about these findings is that the COVID vaccines are immunogenic in pregnant women. There may be a benefit to the newborns because antibodies are passed on through the placenta,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “The main questions that remain are safety of the vaccine during pregnancy and effectiveness of the vaccine during pregnancy.”

He said he expects to see more studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Despite more than 73,600 infections and 80 deaths from COVID-19 in people who were pregnant, none of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials included pregnant or lactating participants.

“This is an important initial study to confirm the antibody generation from mRNA vaccination in pregnant women, and the passage of antibody via cord blood and breast milk,” said Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Washington, Seattle, who specializes in maternal immunization. “Further studies are important to look at the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and whether it influences the level of antibody passed to the fetus.”

Though this study is not a safety study, it “does not show increased expected vaccine reactions, such as aches, pains, and fever, in pregnant versus nonpregnant patients,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “It is not able to evaluate pregnancy outcome data, but it does allow pregnant women being vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines to know that the vaccine is generating protection for them, and the protection is being passed to the fetus in utero via cordblood and to the infant via breast milk.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health along with the Gates Foundation, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR), the Musk Foundation, the Ragon Institute of MGH and MIT, and Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Lead author Dr. Gray has consulted for Illumina, BillionToOne, and Aetion, and three other authors have financial or scientific/medical advising connections to Alba Therapeutics, NextCure, Viome, Systems Seromyx, and Mirvie. Dr. Ault and Dr. Eckert had no disclosures.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

One of the top research journals in the United States has placed its editor-in-chief on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into a controversial podcast episode that critics labeled as racist.

The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.

During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

This story will be updated.

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

One of the top research journals in the United States has placed its editor-in-chief on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into a controversial podcast episode that critics labeled as racist.

The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.

During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

This story will be updated.

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

One of the top research journals in the United States has placed its editor-in-chief on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into a controversial podcast episode that critics labeled as racist.

The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.

During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

This story will be updated.

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

Patients treated with infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed significantly reduced response to COVID-19 antibodies, compared with those treated with vedolizumab, according to data from nearly 7,000 patients.

Although anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are routinely used for patients with IBD, the impact of their immune-suppressing properties on protective immunity to COVID-19 is unknown, wrote Nicholas A. Kennedy, MD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues. These drugs have been reported to impair protective immunity following vaccines for other diseases, such as those for influenza and viral hepatitis.

“By suppressing immune responses, biological and immunosuppression therapies may lead to chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection and have recently been implicated in the evolution and emergence of novel variants,” they noted, citing a study published in Cell.

In the current study, published in Gut, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to identify 6,935 patients with IBD aged 5 years and older seen at 92 hospitals in the United Kingdom between Sept. 22, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020. Of these, 4,685 were treated with infliximab, and 2,250 received vedolizumab. The proportion of study participants with a positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including proportion with positive antibodies following positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and the magnitude of antibody reactivity.

Substantial seroprevalence differences seen

Overall, rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization were similar between infliximab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. However, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the infliximab group, compared with the vedolizumab group (3.4% vs. 6.0%; P < .0001). In addition, infliximab and immunomodulator use were each independently associated with lower seropositivity, compared with vedolizumab (odds ratio, 0.66 for infliximab and OR, 0.70 for immunomodulators) in a multivariate analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, 39 of 81 infliximab-treated patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 infection seroconverted (48%), compared with 30 of 36 vedolizumab-treated patients (83%) (P < .00044). Infliximab-treated patients with confirmed infections also showed a lower magnitude of anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity, compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (P < .0001).

From a clinical perspective, the lower seroconversion rates and reduced levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity might increase susceptibility to recurrent COVID-19 infections in infliximab-treated IBD patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the impaired serological responses might promote chronic nasopharyngeal colonization and consequently promote the development of COVID-19 variants and drive persistent transmission, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of knowledge on the impact of attenuated immune response on infection risk, the potential for recall bias associated with patient reports, and the focus on infliximab only, the researchers pointed out. However, the key findings are likely apply to other anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies including adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab, they suggested.

The study was strengthened by the recruitment of a large number of patients in a narrow time frame and comprehensive collection of data on patient-reported outcomes, COVID-19 testing, and serological assay results, the researchers said. Overall, the findings support the public health value of serological testing and virus surveillance to identify suboptimal vaccine response and to consider implications for practice, they added. “If attenuated serological responses following vaccination are also observed, then modified immunization strategies will need to be designed for millions of patients worldwide,” they emphasized.

Findings inform clinical practice and public health

The study is very important for many reasons, said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, PhD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an interview. “It is known that there is decreased responsiveness to a number of routine vaccinations in IBD patients on immune active therapy. In terms of SARS-CoV-2, development of an immune response with infection is important in terms of severity of infection, reinfection, and possibly limiting spread of infection in this patient population,” she said. “Looking at both serum seroconversion and reactivity of immune response in patients with known SARS-CoV-2 infection will help to define clinical and public health guidance, and also may be predictive as to what might happen with SARS-CoV-2 immunization based on background biologic or immunosuppressant therapy,” she noted.

Dr. Isaacs said that she was not surprised by the study findings. “Anti-TNF, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy are all thought to be systemically active and likely to suppress the immune response to infection and vaccination,” she said. Vedolizumab, on the other hand, is thought to be less systemically active and clinically is associated with fewer serious infections.

Data will drive patient counseling 

“These results affect counseling of IBD patients on immune active therapy who have had a SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Isaacs. “They should be made aware that infection does not indicate protection for further infection. Although the issues that are raised in this study are of concern, patients should not have clinically beneficial therapy discontinued or switched based on these results,” she said.

“Additional research is needed to determine what the seroconversion rate is with the currently available immunizations for SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Isaacs. More questions to address include whether there are differences in the different products available, whether immunization after SARS-CoV-2 infection improves both seroconversion and immune reactivity, and whether there is any benefit to transiently stopping dual immune active therapy during the time of immunization, she said.

Further studies can fill knowledge gaps

“There is a knowledge gap in our understanding of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with IBD who have previously been infected,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, MS, staff physician and research scientist in the inflammatory bowel disease program at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor (Mich.) Healthcare System, said in an interview. ”This is a first step in beginning to narrow this gap – to provide patients and providers with data to drive recommendations during this COVID-19 pandemic.”

She added that, while further work needs to be done, the study findings do support potential benefit for ongoing vigilance among patients receiving infliximab for IBD. “The study findings also drive us to seek answers to more questions: For example, should we consider serological testing for patients on infliximab? How does the presence or absence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associate with susceptibility to infection for patients with infliximab?

“Further studies examining anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity are necessary to better understand antibody responses between patients with IBD to the general population, or between patients on immunosuppressive therapy and the general population,” she said. “Observational studies are also not designed to examine the causal relationship between infections, medications, and antibody responses. There may be some inherent differences to patients who receive infliximab as compared to vedolizumab for IBD.”

The study was supported by Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors disclosed financial and nonfinancial relationships with numerous companies, including AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Immundiagnostik, as well as Janssen, who markets infliximab, and Takeda, who markets vedolizumab. Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/31/21.

Patients treated with infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed significantly reduced response to COVID-19 antibodies, compared with those treated with vedolizumab, according to data from nearly 7,000 patients.

Although anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are routinely used for patients with IBD, the impact of their immune-suppressing properties on protective immunity to COVID-19 is unknown, wrote Nicholas A. Kennedy, MD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues. These drugs have been reported to impair protective immunity following vaccines for other diseases, such as those for influenza and viral hepatitis.

“By suppressing immune responses, biological and immunosuppression therapies may lead to chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection and have recently been implicated in the evolution and emergence of novel variants,” they noted, citing a study published in Cell.

In the current study, published in Gut, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to identify 6,935 patients with IBD aged 5 years and older seen at 92 hospitals in the United Kingdom between Sept. 22, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020. Of these, 4,685 were treated with infliximab, and 2,250 received vedolizumab. The proportion of study participants with a positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including proportion with positive antibodies following positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and the magnitude of antibody reactivity.

Substantial seroprevalence differences seen

Overall, rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization were similar between infliximab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. However, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the infliximab group, compared with the vedolizumab group (3.4% vs. 6.0%; P < .0001). In addition, infliximab and immunomodulator use were each independently associated with lower seropositivity, compared with vedolizumab (odds ratio, 0.66 for infliximab and OR, 0.70 for immunomodulators) in a multivariate analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, 39 of 81 infliximab-treated patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 infection seroconverted (48%), compared with 30 of 36 vedolizumab-treated patients (83%) (P < .00044). Infliximab-treated patients with confirmed infections also showed a lower magnitude of anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity, compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (P < .0001).

From a clinical perspective, the lower seroconversion rates and reduced levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity might increase susceptibility to recurrent COVID-19 infections in infliximab-treated IBD patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the impaired serological responses might promote chronic nasopharyngeal colonization and consequently promote the development of COVID-19 variants and drive persistent transmission, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of knowledge on the impact of attenuated immune response on infection risk, the potential for recall bias associated with patient reports, and the focus on infliximab only, the researchers pointed out. However, the key findings are likely apply to other anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies including adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab, they suggested.

The study was strengthened by the recruitment of a large number of patients in a narrow time frame and comprehensive collection of data on patient-reported outcomes, COVID-19 testing, and serological assay results, the researchers said. Overall, the findings support the public health value of serological testing and virus surveillance to identify suboptimal vaccine response and to consider implications for practice, they added. “If attenuated serological responses following vaccination are also observed, then modified immunization strategies will need to be designed for millions of patients worldwide,” they emphasized.

Findings inform clinical practice and public health

The study is very important for many reasons, said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, PhD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an interview. “It is known that there is decreased responsiveness to a number of routine vaccinations in IBD patients on immune active therapy. In terms of SARS-CoV-2, development of an immune response with infection is important in terms of severity of infection, reinfection, and possibly limiting spread of infection in this patient population,” she said. “Looking at both serum seroconversion and reactivity of immune response in patients with known SARS-CoV-2 infection will help to define clinical and public health guidance, and also may be predictive as to what might happen with SARS-CoV-2 immunization based on background biologic or immunosuppressant therapy,” she noted.

Dr. Isaacs said that she was not surprised by the study findings. “Anti-TNF, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy are all thought to be systemically active and likely to suppress the immune response to infection and vaccination,” she said. Vedolizumab, on the other hand, is thought to be less systemically active and clinically is associated with fewer serious infections.

Data will drive patient counseling 

“These results affect counseling of IBD patients on immune active therapy who have had a SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Isaacs. “They should be made aware that infection does not indicate protection for further infection. Although the issues that are raised in this study are of concern, patients should not have clinically beneficial therapy discontinued or switched based on these results,” she said.

“Additional research is needed to determine what the seroconversion rate is with the currently available immunizations for SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Isaacs. More questions to address include whether there are differences in the different products available, whether immunization after SARS-CoV-2 infection improves both seroconversion and immune reactivity, and whether there is any benefit to transiently stopping dual immune active therapy during the time of immunization, she said.

Further studies can fill knowledge gaps

“There is a knowledge gap in our understanding of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with IBD who have previously been infected,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, MS, staff physician and research scientist in the inflammatory bowel disease program at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor (Mich.) Healthcare System, said in an interview. ”This is a first step in beginning to narrow this gap – to provide patients and providers with data to drive recommendations during this COVID-19 pandemic.”

She added that, while further work needs to be done, the study findings do support potential benefit for ongoing vigilance among patients receiving infliximab for IBD. “The study findings also drive us to seek answers to more questions: For example, should we consider serological testing for patients on infliximab? How does the presence or absence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associate with susceptibility to infection for patients with infliximab?

“Further studies examining anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity are necessary to better understand antibody responses between patients with IBD to the general population, or between patients on immunosuppressive therapy and the general population,” she said. “Observational studies are also not designed to examine the causal relationship between infections, medications, and antibody responses. There may be some inherent differences to patients who receive infliximab as compared to vedolizumab for IBD.”

The study was supported by Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors disclosed financial and nonfinancial relationships with numerous companies, including AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Immundiagnostik, as well as Janssen, who markets infliximab, and Takeda, who markets vedolizumab. Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/31/21.

Patients treated with infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) showed significantly reduced response to COVID-19 antibodies, compared with those treated with vedolizumab, according to data from nearly 7,000 patients.

Although anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs are routinely used for patients with IBD, the impact of their immune-suppressing properties on protective immunity to COVID-19 is unknown, wrote Nicholas A. Kennedy, MD, of the University of Exeter (England) and colleagues. These drugs have been reported to impair protective immunity following vaccines for other diseases, such as those for influenza and viral hepatitis.

“By suppressing immune responses, biological and immunosuppression therapies may lead to chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection and have recently been implicated in the evolution and emergence of novel variants,” they noted, citing a study published in Cell.

In the current study, published in Gut, the researchers used data from the CLARITY IBD study to identify 6,935 patients with IBD aged 5 years and older seen at 92 hospitals in the United Kingdom between Sept. 22, 2020, and Dec. 23, 2020. Of these, 4,685 were treated with infliximab, and 2,250 received vedolizumab. The proportion of study participants with a positive anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody test was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including proportion with positive antibodies following positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and the magnitude of antibody reactivity.

Substantial seroprevalence differences seen

Overall, rates of symptomatic and proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization were similar between infliximab-treated and vedolizumab-treated patients with IBD. However, seroprevalence was significantly lower in the infliximab group, compared with the vedolizumab group (3.4% vs. 6.0%; P < .0001). In addition, infliximab and immunomodulator use were each independently associated with lower seropositivity, compared with vedolizumab (odds ratio, 0.66 for infliximab and OR, 0.70 for immunomodulators) in a multivariate analysis.

In a sensitivity analysis, 39 of 81 infliximab-treated patients with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 infection seroconverted (48%), compared with 30 of 36 vedolizumab-treated patients (83%) (P < .00044). Infliximab-treated patients with confirmed infections also showed a lower magnitude of anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity, compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (P < .0001).

From a clinical perspective, the lower seroconversion rates and reduced levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity might increase susceptibility to recurrent COVID-19 infections in infliximab-treated IBD patients, the researchers noted. In addition, the impaired serological responses might promote chronic nasopharyngeal colonization and consequently promote the development of COVID-19 variants and drive persistent transmission, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of knowledge on the impact of attenuated immune response on infection risk, the potential for recall bias associated with patient reports, and the focus on infliximab only, the researchers pointed out. However, the key findings are likely apply to other anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies including adalimumab, certolizumab and golimumab, they suggested.

The study was strengthened by the recruitment of a large number of patients in a narrow time frame and comprehensive collection of data on patient-reported outcomes, COVID-19 testing, and serological assay results, the researchers said. Overall, the findings support the public health value of serological testing and virus surveillance to identify suboptimal vaccine response and to consider implications for practice, they added. “If attenuated serological responses following vaccination are also observed, then modified immunization strategies will need to be designed for millions of patients worldwide,” they emphasized.

Findings inform clinical practice and public health

The study is very important for many reasons, said Kim L. Isaacs, MD, PhD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an interview. “It is known that there is decreased responsiveness to a number of routine vaccinations in IBD patients on immune active therapy. In terms of SARS-CoV-2, development of an immune response with infection is important in terms of severity of infection, reinfection, and possibly limiting spread of infection in this patient population,” she said. “Looking at both serum seroconversion and reactivity of immune response in patients with known SARS-CoV-2 infection will help to define clinical and public health guidance, and also may be predictive as to what might happen with SARS-CoV-2 immunization based on background biologic or immunosuppressant therapy,” she noted.

Dr. Isaacs said that she was not surprised by the study findings. “Anti-TNF, thiopurine, and methotrexate therapy are all thought to be systemically active and likely to suppress the immune response to infection and vaccination,” she said. Vedolizumab, on the other hand, is thought to be less systemically active and clinically is associated with fewer serious infections.

Data will drive patient counseling 

“These results affect counseling of IBD patients on immune active therapy who have had a SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Dr. Isaacs. “They should be made aware that infection does not indicate protection for further infection. Although the issues that are raised in this study are of concern, patients should not have clinically beneficial therapy discontinued or switched based on these results,” she said.

“Additional research is needed to determine what the seroconversion rate is with the currently available immunizations for SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Isaacs. More questions to address include whether there are differences in the different products available, whether immunization after SARS-CoV-2 infection improves both seroconversion and immune reactivity, and whether there is any benefit to transiently stopping dual immune active therapy during the time of immunization, she said.

Further studies can fill knowledge gaps

“There is a knowledge gap in our understanding of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections among patients with IBD who have previously been infected,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, MS, staff physician and research scientist in the inflammatory bowel disease program at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor (Mich.) Healthcare System, said in an interview. ”This is a first step in beginning to narrow this gap – to provide patients and providers with data to drive recommendations during this COVID-19 pandemic.”

She added that, while further work needs to be done, the study findings do support potential benefit for ongoing vigilance among patients receiving infliximab for IBD. “The study findings also drive us to seek answers to more questions: For example, should we consider serological testing for patients on infliximab? How does the presence or absence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associate with susceptibility to infection for patients with infliximab?

“Further studies examining anti–SARS-CoV-2 reactivity are necessary to better understand antibody responses between patients with IBD to the general population, or between patients on immunosuppressive therapy and the general population,” she said. “Observational studies are also not designed to examine the causal relationship between infections, medications, and antibody responses. There may be some inherent differences to patients who receive infliximab as compared to vedolizumab for IBD.”

The study was supported by Biogen (Switzerland), Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, and the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The study authors disclosed financial and nonfinancial relationships with numerous companies, including AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Galapagos, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Immundiagnostik, as well as Janssen, who markets infliximab, and Takeda, who markets vedolizumab. Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/31/21.

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More sleep at night, fewer or no sleep problems, and low levels of professional burnout were associated with a lower risk of developing COVID-19 among health care workers considered to be at high risk for exposure to patients with COVID-19, new evidence reveals.

PRImageFactory/iStock/Getty Images

For each additional hour of sleep at night, for example, risk for COVID-19 dropped by 12% in a study of 2844 frontline health care workers.

Furthermore, those who reported experiencing work-related burnout every day were 2.6 times more likely to report having COVID-19, to report having COVID-19 for a longer time, and to experience COVID-19 of more severity.

“This study underscores the importance of non–hygiene-related risk factors for COVID-19 and supports a holistic approach to health – including optimal sleep and job stress reduction to protect our health care workers from this and future pandemics,” senior author Sara B. Seidelmann, MD, said in an interview.

“Our findings add to the literature that sleep duration at night, sleep problems, and burnout may be risk factors for viral illnesses like COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Seidelmann and colleagues.

This is the first study to link COVID-19 risk to sleep habits – including number of hours of sleep at night, daytime napping hours, and severe sleep problems – among health care workers across multiple countries.

The study was published online March 22 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention, and Health.

The researchers surveyed health care professionals in specialties considered to place personnel at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2: critical care, emergency care, and internal medicine.

The association between sleep and burnout risk factors and COVID-19 did not vary significantly by specialty. “We didn’t detect any significant interactions between age, sex, specialty, or country,” said Dr. Seidelmann, assistant professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and an internist at Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.

In addition to the 12% lower risk associated with each additional hour of sleep at night, each 1 additional hour of daytime napping was linked with a 6% increased risk for COVID-19 in an adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.12).

Daytime napping slightly increased risk for COVID-19 in five of the six countries included in the study: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In contrast, in Spain, napping had a nonsignificant protective effect.

The survey asked health care workers to recall nighttime sleep duration, sleep disorders, and burnout in the year prior to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

‘Significant, close contact’ with COVID-19?

Lead author Hyunju Kim, NP, Dr. Seidelmann, and colleagues conducted the population-based, case-control study from July 17 to Sept. 25, 2020. They identified health care workers from the SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) network.

Of the respondents, 72% were men. The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and the study population was 77% White, 12% Asian, 6% mixed background, 2% Black, and 1% other. (The remainder preferred not to say).

The 568 health care workers considered to have COVID-19 were classified on the basis of self-reported symptoms. Control participants had no symptoms associated with COVID-19.

All 2,844 participants answered yes to a question about having “significant close contact” with COVID-19 patients in their workplace.

Compared to reporting no sleep problems, having three such problems – difficulty sleeping at night, poor sleep continuity, and frequent use of sleeping pills – was associated with 88% greater odds of COVID-19 (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17–3.01).

Having one sleep problem was not associated with COVID-19.
 

More burnout, greater risk

The health care workers reported the severity of any work-related burnout. “There was a significant dose-response relationship between frequency of burnout and COVID-19,” the researchers noted.

Those who reported having burnout rarely or weekly had a 1.3-1.4 greater chance of reporting COVID-19 compared to those who reported having no burnout, for example.

In addition, reporting a high level of burnout was linked to about three times the risk for having COVID-19 of longer duration and of greater severity.

What drives the association between sleep problems, burnout, and higher risk for COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 remains unknown.

“The mechanism underlying these associations isn’t clear, but suboptimal sleep, sleep disorders, and stress may result in immune system dysregulation, increased inflammation, and alterations in hormones such as cortisol and melatonin that may increase vulnerability to viral infections,” Dr. Seidelmann said.
 

Strengths and limitations

Using a large network of health care workers in the early phase of the pandemic is a strength of the study. How generalizable the findings are outside the SHG database of 1.5 million health care workers remains unknown.

Another limitation was reliance on self-reporting of COVID-19 patient exposure, outcomes, and covariates, which could have introduced bias.

“However,” the researchers noted, “health care workers are likely a reliable source of information.”
 

Insomnia a common challenge

A 2020 meta-analysis examined the effect of insomnia and psychological factors on COVID-19 risk among health care workers. Lead author Kavita Batra, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and colleagues found that the pooled prevalence of insomnia was almost 28%.

“The recent six-country study by Kim and colleagues also underscores this relationship between lack of sleep and having higher odds of COVID-19 infection,” Manoj Sharma, MBBS, PhD, professor of social and behavioral health in the UNLV department of environmental and occupational health, and one of the study authors, said in an interview.

More research is warranted to learn the direction of the association, he said. Does reduced sleep lower immunity and make a health care worker more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or does the anxiety associated with COVID-19 contribute to insomnia?

“Practicing sleep hygiene is a must not only for health workers but also for everyone,” Dr. Sharma added. Recommendations include having fixed hours of going to bed, fixed hours of waking up, not overdoing naps, having at least 30 minutes of winding down before sleeping, having a dark bedroom devoid of all electronics and other disturbances, avoiding smoking, alcohol, and stimulants (such as caffeine) before sleeping, and practicing relaxation right before sleeping, he said.

“It is hard for some health care workers, especially those who work night shifts, but it must be a priority to follow as many sleep hygiene measures as possible,” Dr. Sharma said. “After all, if you do not take care of yourself how can you take care of others?”

Dr. Seidelmann, Dr. Batra, and Dr. Sharma have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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