Pulmonology

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Updated pneumococcal vaccine recommendations for adults from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call for the use of the two recently approved vaccines in a more streamlined approach to avoid the complexities of age and patient conditions that hindered previous recommendations.

The recommendations, voted on by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in October and made final in January with publication in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), call for use of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV15; Vaxneuvance, Merck Sharp & Dohme) or 20-valent PCV (PREVNAR20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals).

The recommendations apply to PCV-naive adults in the United States who are either aged 65 years or older, or who are aged 19-64 years and have underlying conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart or liver disease, or HIV, and have not previously received a PCV or whose previous vaccination history is unknown.

If the PCV15 vaccine is used, a subsequent dose of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23, Merck Sharp & Dohme) should be provided, typically at least 1 year later, under the recommendations.

As reported by this news organization, PCV15 and PREVNAR20 received approval from the Food and Drug Administration last July.

Those approvals provided an impetus for the revised recommendations, “offer[ing] an opportunity to review the existing recommendations and available data,” Miwako Kobayashi, MD, first author of the MMWR report and a medical epidemiologist with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, in Atlanta, said in an interview.

“As part of that process, ACIP strived to simplify the recommendations,” she said.

The previous recommendations called for the PCV13 vaccine and the PPSV23 and had varying conditions (depending on certain age and risk groups) that added complexity to the process. Under the new approach, the same recommendation applies regardless of specific medical conditions or other risk factors.

“With the simplified recommendation for adults 19 through 64, we expect coverage may increase among this population,” Dr. Kobayashi said.

Compared with the PCV13 vaccine, PREVNAR20 protects against seven additional serotypes involved in cases of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, which are responsible for up to 40% of all cases of pneumococcal disease and related deaths in the United States.

While the PREVNAR20 includes five more pneumococcal serotypes than PCV15, the

CDC does not recommend one over the other, Dr. Kobayashi noted.

More than 90% of cases of adult IPD involve older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions or immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leaks, or cochlear implants, the MMWR report notes.

Commenting on the recommendations, Amit A. Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., underscored the need for clinicians to be proactive in recommending the vaccines to those patients.

“Despite only needing one vaccine dose after turning 65 to be considered vaccinated, only about 70% of people in this group have received any pneumococcal vaccination,” he said in an interview. “This percentage has not increased much over the past several years.”

The new approach should help change that, he said.

“These new recommendations are a significant simplification from the prior confusing and challenging-to-implement recommendations from 2019,” Dr. Shah explained.

Among the 2019 recommendations was a stipulation for “shared decision-making” with PCV13, and a conversation that often only complicated matters, he noted.

“Patients and providers alike had confusion about this since it was not a clear-cut ‘yes, give it’ or ‘no, do not give it any longer’ recommendation.”

“Now that this new recommendation will require no extra time for a discussion in the clinic, and just a simple ‘it’s time for your pneumonia shot’ offer, this may become more feasible,” Dr. Shah added. “In addition, removal of the shared decision-making stipulation allows for this immunization to be easily protocolized in the clinic, similar to automatic offers to the flu vaccine for patients each year.”

According to the CDC, pneumococcal pneumonia causes an estimated 150,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States, while pneumococcal meningitis and bacteremia killed approximately 3,250 people in the United States in 2019.

“Clinicians are patients’ most trusted resource when it comes to vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Kobayashi said. “We encourage all clinicians to recommend pneumococcal vaccines when indicated.”

Dr. Kobayashi and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

The COVID-19 pandemic is now associated with the highest number of excess deaths worldwide since the 1918 flu pandemic, sometimes known as the “Spanish flu.”

Excess mortality is a way of quantifying the impact of a pandemic, based on overall mortality from nonpandemic periods. Mortality data over long periods of time are not available for many countries, but Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain have accumulated death count data for an uninterrupted period of more than 100 years.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Kaspar Staub, PhD, of the University of Zurich led a team of researchers in reviewing data on monthly excess deaths from all causes for Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain for 2020 to 2021. Dr. Staub and colleagues also compared these numbers to other pandemic and nonpandemic periods since the end of the 19th century. The starting years were 1877 for Switzerland, 1851 for Sweden, and 1908 for Spain.

The researchers collected data for monthly all-cause deaths from the statistical offices of each country and determined excess mortality by comparing these numbers to population size and age structure.

They found that 2020 showed the highest number of excess deaths since 1918, with relative excess of deaths of 12.5% in Switzerland, 8.5% in Sweden, and 17.3 % in Spain.

To put it another way, the number of excess deaths per 100,000 people was 100 for Switzerland, 75 for Sweden, and 155 for Spain.

“Our findings suggest that the pandemic led to the second-largest mortality disaster driven by a viral infection in more than 100 years in the three countries we studied, second only to the 1918 influenza pandemic,” the researchers wrote.

They explained that the excess mortality for the year 1918 was six to seven times higher than the 2020 numbers, but that the 2020 numbers might have been higher without the strong public health interventions taken worldwide to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Early estimates suggest that vaccination prevented approximately 470,000 deaths in persons aged 60 years or older across 33 European countries between December 2019 and November 2021,” they wrote. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, “a more conclusive assessment will have to wait,” they added.

The 2020 numbers also were higher than most mortality rates since 1918, including peak years of previous influenza pandemics that occurred in 1957, 1968, 1977, and, most recently, the swine flu pandemic of 2009 which was caused by a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus.

The study findings had some limitations. For example, only three countries were included. Also, monthly death numbers according to sex, age, and cause of death were available only for the past 60 years, and data from years before the 20th century may not be reliable, the researchers said.

The new study does not account for the long-term effects of patients suffering from long COVID, they noted.

Study findings support strong public health response

“With the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing, this study reinforces the historic magnitude of the problem in terms of mortality and could add to the justification for ongoing public health measures such as vaccination drives and vaccine mandates to curb deaths,” said Suman Pal, MD, an internal medicine physician at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.

“The results are surprising because when we view the rapid advancement in medical science over the last few decades, which have led to a decline in mortality from many previously fatal diseases, the scale of excess mortality from COVID-19 seems to have offset many such gains in the past 2 years.”

Prior studies of United States mortality data have estimated that excess deaths in the United States in 2020 exceeded the deaths attributed to COVID-19, said Dr. Pal. “The findings of this study could help clinicians in their discussion of the need for COVID-19 prevention measures with their patients” and inform discussions between doctors and patients about prevention strategies, he explained.

“Emphasizing that this pandemic is the second-largest cause of death due to a viral infection in a century could help patients understand the need for public health measures that may be viewed as unprecedented, such as government-imposed lockdowns, contact tracing, mask requirements, restrictions on travel, and vaccine mandates,” Dr. Pal noted. Better understanding of the evidence behind such measures may decrease the public’s resistance to following them, he added.As for additional research, “region-specific analysis of excess deaths may help estimate the impact of COVID-19 better, especially in regions where data reporting may be unreliable.”

Dr. F. Perry Wilson's take on study

“All-cause mortality is a key metric to assess the impact of the pandemic, because each death is treated equally,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, of Yale University, in an interview. “With this type of analysis, there is no vague definition of a death from COVID or with COVID,” he explained. “A death is a death, and more deaths than expected is, of course, a bad thing. These analyses give a high-level view of the true human cost of the pandemic,” he said.

Yale School of Medicine

Dr. Wilson said he was not surprised by the findings. “There have been multiple studies, across multiple countries including the United States, which show similar findings—that observed deaths during this pandemic are substantially higher than expected,” he said. The current study findings are unique in that they compare the current pandemic to death rates in a nearly unbroken chain into the last century using data that only a few countries can provide, he noted. 

The mortality data are “quite similar to what we see in the United States, with the exception that Spain was particularly hard-hit in the first COVID-19 wave in April 2020, said Dr. Wilson. By contrast, “the U.S. had substantially more excess deaths in the recent Delta wave, presumably due to lower vaccination uptake,” he added.

The current study is important for clinicians and their patients, said Dr. Wilson. “Data like these can help cut through some of the misinformation, such as the idea that only people who would have died anyway die of COVID, or that COVID is not severe,” he emphasized. “Overall death data are quite clear that far more people, millions more people, died over the last 22 months than could possibly be explained except by a global-level mortality event,” he said. 

“One thing this study reminds us of is the value of high-quality data,” said Dr. Wilson. “Few countries have near complete vital statistics records on their entire populations and these can be so crucial to understand the true impact of pandemics and other disasters,” he explained. Of course, mortality data also serve as a reminder “that COVID is a serious disease: a once-in-a-century (we hope) pandemic,” he added.

The current study showed that excess death rates were similar, but not the same, from country to country, Dr. Wilson noted. “Moving forward, we need to learn what factors, from vaccination to social distancing strategies,” saved lives around the world,” he said. 

The study was supported by the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The researchers, Dr. Pal, and Dr. Wilson had no financial conflicts.

*This article was updated on 2/1/2022.

A deep molecular dive into COVID-19 patients found that the presence of autoantibodies in peripheral blood at initial diagnosis was the chief of four risk factors predicting if a patient would experience long COVID.

Other significant early predictors of prolonged COVID symptoms – which the researchers called postacute sequelae – were having type 2 diabetes, SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia, Yapeng Su, PhD, of the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle, and colleagues wrote in Cell.

Having EBV viremia suggested that latent EBV has been reactivated, the authors noted.

“The most important postacute sequelae [that is conditions that are consequences of a disease] of COVID is the presence of autoantibodies,” James R. Heath, PhD, president of ISB and a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It’s about two times more important than the others.”

Dr. Heath and coauthors said early detection of this and other variables could prompt earlier aggressive treatment in patients susceptible to long COVID and ward off lingering symptoms.

“These predictive measures of long COVID can also help to better inform patients of their possible disease course,” study coauthor Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB, said in an interview. “We were also able to partially resolve the immunological underpinnings of some postacute sequelae of COVID in a way that suggested potential therapies, and the timing of those therapies.”

For example, he continued, the use of antivirals very early in the infectious course may mitigate the later development of long COVID. “This will, of course, have to be explored in an appropriately designed clinical trial.

“We also identified biomarkers of certain types of long COVID, such as neurological sequelae. Those biomarkers can help define the condition, which is a first step towards developing treatments.”

Study findings

With COVID patients monitored for 2 or 3 months, the study findings of the international “multiomic profiling” analysis include:

• Subclinical patient autoantibodies that reduce anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggest there is immune dysregulation during COVID-19 infection.
• Reactivation of latent other viruses during initial infection may be contributing to long COVID.
• Gastrointestinal postacute sequelae of COVID presents with a unique postacute expansion of cytotoxic T cells.
• SARS-CoV-2–specific and cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T cells displayed unique dynamics during recovery from infection.

According to the authors, as many as 69% of COVID-19 patients suffer from long COVID – a range of new, recurrent, or ongoing problems 4 or more weeks following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These may include memory loss, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, anosmia, and shortness of breath.

Long COVID has been associated with acute disease severity, and is suspected to be related to autoimmune factors and unresolved viral fragments, according to the paper.
 

Research methods

The international study did a deep and detailed dive into multiple molecular markers of long COVID. It enrolled 209 COVID-19 patients with varying degrees of disease severity and matched them to 457 healthy controls. The researchers’ goal was to identify discrete and quantifiable long COVID factors and guide possible preemptive treatment. 

Patients were assessed at three time points: at initial diagnosis, during the acute disease phase about a week later, and again 2 to 3 months post onset of symptoms after recovery from the acute phase of COVID. At the third assessment, some patients had lingering symptoms such as fatigue (52% ), cough (25%), and loss of taste or sense of smell (18%).

Blood draws were analyzed for autoantibodies and SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, global plasma proteomic and metabolomic profiles, and single-cell multiomic characterizations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Each blood draw was paired with nasal-swab and plasma measurements of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and the data sets were integrated with electronic health records and self-reported patient symptoms to guide the interpretation of the molecular signatures of long COVID.
 

Author conclusions

The authors found an association between T2 hyperinflammation and long COVID–anticipating autoantibodies. This association further implies that hyperinflammation-controlling therapies in the acute stage of COVID may influence whether a patient experiences long COVID. “However, the detailed timing and context of these therapies matter, and, thus, future well-controlled studies will be needed to test these and other therapeutic implications,” Dr. Su and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, the negative correlations between anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and certain autoantibodies may suggest that patients with elevated autoantibody levels are more susceptible to breakthrough infections, the authors said.

“Many patients with high autoantibodies simultaneously have low protective antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2, and that’s going to make them more susceptible to breakthrough infections,” Mr. Chen explained.*

“Detectability of most [long COVID-19 factors] at COVID diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early disease measurements for understanding emergent chronic conditions and suggests [long COVID] treatment strategies,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Chen, there are clear similarities in underlying immunobiology between patients with COVID autoantibodies and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

“These findings are also helping us frame our thinking around other chronic autoimmune conditions, such as postacute Lyme syndrome, for example,” said Dr. Heath.

The bottom line, said Mr. Chen, is that measuring early long COVID indicators may result in preventive treatments. “An example is the cortisol deficiency we see in certain long COVID patients. There are known treatments such as cortisol replacement therapy that should be explored for this group.”

Outside expert’s take on findings

Commenting on the study, Sherry Hsiang-Yi Chou, MD, who was not involved in the research, called the study a very important first step in understanding the path of this complex phenomenon and perhaps other conditions with long-term side effects.

“The researchers have done huge amount of innovative scientific work. They’ve shown the DNA signature of how our bodies respond to this disease,” said Dr. Chou, who is chief of the division of neurocritical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“This type of research will help us scientifically understand and differentiate the various syndromes within long COVID. It will help identify who’s at risk for different aspects of this syndrome and lead to following them for longer periods in clinical trials,” she added.

The authors acknowledged that lengthier studies in larger cohorts were needed to see which patients will develop long-term chronic postacute sequelae of COVID.

This research was supported by the Wilke Family Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Merck, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Saint John’s Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Heath is a cofounder of Pact Pharma. He and several coauthors disclosed various ties to multiple private-sector companies. Mr. Chen and Dr. Chou had no competing interests.

*Correction, 1/28: An earlier version of this story misidentified Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB.

A deep molecular dive into COVID-19 patients found that the presence of autoantibodies in peripheral blood at initial diagnosis was the chief of four risk factors predicting if a patient would experience long COVID.

Other significant early predictors of prolonged COVID symptoms – which the researchers called postacute sequelae – were having type 2 diabetes, SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia, Yapeng Su, PhD, of the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle, and colleagues wrote in Cell.

Having EBV viremia suggested that latent EBV has been reactivated, the authors noted.

“The most important postacute sequelae [that is conditions that are consequences of a disease] of COVID is the presence of autoantibodies,” James R. Heath, PhD, president of ISB and a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It’s about two times more important than the others.”

Dr. Heath and coauthors said early detection of this and other variables could prompt earlier aggressive treatment in patients susceptible to long COVID and ward off lingering symptoms.

“These predictive measures of long COVID can also help to better inform patients of their possible disease course,” study coauthor Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB, said in an interview. “We were also able to partially resolve the immunological underpinnings of some postacute sequelae of COVID in a way that suggested potential therapies, and the timing of those therapies.”

For example, he continued, the use of antivirals very early in the infectious course may mitigate the later development of long COVID. “This will, of course, have to be explored in an appropriately designed clinical trial.

“We also identified biomarkers of certain types of long COVID, such as neurological sequelae. Those biomarkers can help define the condition, which is a first step towards developing treatments.”

Study findings

With COVID patients monitored for 2 or 3 months, the study findings of the international “multiomic profiling” analysis include:

• Subclinical patient autoantibodies that reduce anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggest there is immune dysregulation during COVID-19 infection.
• Reactivation of latent other viruses during initial infection may be contributing to long COVID.
• Gastrointestinal postacute sequelae of COVID presents with a unique postacute expansion of cytotoxic T cells.
• SARS-CoV-2–specific and cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T cells displayed unique dynamics during recovery from infection.

According to the authors, as many as 69% of COVID-19 patients suffer from long COVID – a range of new, recurrent, or ongoing problems 4 or more weeks following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These may include memory loss, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, anosmia, and shortness of breath.

Long COVID has been associated with acute disease severity, and is suspected to be related to autoimmune factors and unresolved viral fragments, according to the paper.
 

Research methods

The international study did a deep and detailed dive into multiple molecular markers of long COVID. It enrolled 209 COVID-19 patients with varying degrees of disease severity and matched them to 457 healthy controls. The researchers’ goal was to identify discrete and quantifiable long COVID factors and guide possible preemptive treatment. 

Patients were assessed at three time points: at initial diagnosis, during the acute disease phase about a week later, and again 2 to 3 months post onset of symptoms after recovery from the acute phase of COVID. At the third assessment, some patients had lingering symptoms such as fatigue (52% ), cough (25%), and loss of taste or sense of smell (18%).

Blood draws were analyzed for autoantibodies and SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, global plasma proteomic and metabolomic profiles, and single-cell multiomic characterizations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Each blood draw was paired with nasal-swab and plasma measurements of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and the data sets were integrated with electronic health records and self-reported patient symptoms to guide the interpretation of the molecular signatures of long COVID.
 

Author conclusions

The authors found an association between T2 hyperinflammation and long COVID–anticipating autoantibodies. This association further implies that hyperinflammation-controlling therapies in the acute stage of COVID may influence whether a patient experiences long COVID. “However, the detailed timing and context of these therapies matter, and, thus, future well-controlled studies will be needed to test these and other therapeutic implications,” Dr. Su and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, the negative correlations between anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and certain autoantibodies may suggest that patients with elevated autoantibody levels are more susceptible to breakthrough infections, the authors said.

“Many patients with high autoantibodies simultaneously have low protective antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2, and that’s going to make them more susceptible to breakthrough infections,” Mr. Chen explained.*

“Detectability of most [long COVID-19 factors] at COVID diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early disease measurements for understanding emergent chronic conditions and suggests [long COVID] treatment strategies,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Chen, there are clear similarities in underlying immunobiology between patients with COVID autoantibodies and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

“These findings are also helping us frame our thinking around other chronic autoimmune conditions, such as postacute Lyme syndrome, for example,” said Dr. Heath.

The bottom line, said Mr. Chen, is that measuring early long COVID indicators may result in preventive treatments. “An example is the cortisol deficiency we see in certain long COVID patients. There are known treatments such as cortisol replacement therapy that should be explored for this group.”

Outside expert’s take on findings

Commenting on the study, Sherry Hsiang-Yi Chou, MD, who was not involved in the research, called the study a very important first step in understanding the path of this complex phenomenon and perhaps other conditions with long-term side effects.

“The researchers have done huge amount of innovative scientific work. They’ve shown the DNA signature of how our bodies respond to this disease,” said Dr. Chou, who is chief of the division of neurocritical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“This type of research will help us scientifically understand and differentiate the various syndromes within long COVID. It will help identify who’s at risk for different aspects of this syndrome and lead to following them for longer periods in clinical trials,” she added.

The authors acknowledged that lengthier studies in larger cohorts were needed to see which patients will develop long-term chronic postacute sequelae of COVID.

This research was supported by the Wilke Family Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Merck, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Saint John’s Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Heath is a cofounder of Pact Pharma. He and several coauthors disclosed various ties to multiple private-sector companies. Mr. Chen and Dr. Chou had no competing interests.

*Correction, 1/28: An earlier version of this story misidentified Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB.

A deep molecular dive into COVID-19 patients found that the presence of autoantibodies in peripheral blood at initial diagnosis was the chief of four risk factors predicting if a patient would experience long COVID.

Other significant early predictors of prolonged COVID symptoms – which the researchers called postacute sequelae – were having type 2 diabetes, SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia, Yapeng Su, PhD, of the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle, and colleagues wrote in Cell.

Having EBV viremia suggested that latent EBV has been reactivated, the authors noted.

“The most important postacute sequelae [that is conditions that are consequences of a disease] of COVID is the presence of autoantibodies,” James R. Heath, PhD, president of ISB and a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It’s about two times more important than the others.”

Dr. Heath and coauthors said early detection of this and other variables could prompt earlier aggressive treatment in patients susceptible to long COVID and ward off lingering symptoms.

“These predictive measures of long COVID can also help to better inform patients of their possible disease course,” study coauthor Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB, said in an interview. “We were also able to partially resolve the immunological underpinnings of some postacute sequelae of COVID in a way that suggested potential therapies, and the timing of those therapies.”

For example, he continued, the use of antivirals very early in the infectious course may mitigate the later development of long COVID. “This will, of course, have to be explored in an appropriately designed clinical trial.

“We also identified biomarkers of certain types of long COVID, such as neurological sequelae. Those biomarkers can help define the condition, which is a first step towards developing treatments.”

Study findings

With COVID patients monitored for 2 or 3 months, the study findings of the international “multiomic profiling” analysis include:

• Subclinical patient autoantibodies that reduce anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggest there is immune dysregulation during COVID-19 infection.
• Reactivation of latent other viruses during initial infection may be contributing to long COVID.
• Gastrointestinal postacute sequelae of COVID presents with a unique postacute expansion of cytotoxic T cells.
• SARS-CoV-2–specific and cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T cells displayed unique dynamics during recovery from infection.

According to the authors, as many as 69% of COVID-19 patients suffer from long COVID – a range of new, recurrent, or ongoing problems 4 or more weeks following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These may include memory loss, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, anosmia, and shortness of breath.

Long COVID has been associated with acute disease severity, and is suspected to be related to autoimmune factors and unresolved viral fragments, according to the paper.
 

Research methods

The international study did a deep and detailed dive into multiple molecular markers of long COVID. It enrolled 209 COVID-19 patients with varying degrees of disease severity and matched them to 457 healthy controls. The researchers’ goal was to identify discrete and quantifiable long COVID factors and guide possible preemptive treatment. 

Patients were assessed at three time points: at initial diagnosis, during the acute disease phase about a week later, and again 2 to 3 months post onset of symptoms after recovery from the acute phase of COVID. At the third assessment, some patients had lingering symptoms such as fatigue (52% ), cough (25%), and loss of taste or sense of smell (18%).

Blood draws were analyzed for autoantibodies and SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, global plasma proteomic and metabolomic profiles, and single-cell multiomic characterizations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Each blood draw was paired with nasal-swab and plasma measurements of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and the data sets were integrated with electronic health records and self-reported patient symptoms to guide the interpretation of the molecular signatures of long COVID.
 

Author conclusions

The authors found an association between T2 hyperinflammation and long COVID–anticipating autoantibodies. This association further implies that hyperinflammation-controlling therapies in the acute stage of COVID may influence whether a patient experiences long COVID. “However, the detailed timing and context of these therapies matter, and, thus, future well-controlled studies will be needed to test these and other therapeutic implications,” Dr. Su and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, the negative correlations between anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and certain autoantibodies may suggest that patients with elevated autoantibody levels are more susceptible to breakthrough infections, the authors said.

“Many patients with high autoantibodies simultaneously have low protective antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2, and that’s going to make them more susceptible to breakthrough infections,” Mr. Chen explained.*

“Detectability of most [long COVID-19 factors] at COVID diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early disease measurements for understanding emergent chronic conditions and suggests [long COVID] treatment strategies,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Chen, there are clear similarities in underlying immunobiology between patients with COVID autoantibodies and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

“These findings are also helping us frame our thinking around other chronic autoimmune conditions, such as postacute Lyme syndrome, for example,” said Dr. Heath.

The bottom line, said Mr. Chen, is that measuring early long COVID indicators may result in preventive treatments. “An example is the cortisol deficiency we see in certain long COVID patients. There are known treatments such as cortisol replacement therapy that should be explored for this group.”

Outside expert’s take on findings

Commenting on the study, Sherry Hsiang-Yi Chou, MD, who was not involved in the research, called the study a very important first step in understanding the path of this complex phenomenon and perhaps other conditions with long-term side effects.

“The researchers have done huge amount of innovative scientific work. They’ve shown the DNA signature of how our bodies respond to this disease,” said Dr. Chou, who is chief of the division of neurocritical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“This type of research will help us scientifically understand and differentiate the various syndromes within long COVID. It will help identify who’s at risk for different aspects of this syndrome and lead to following them for longer periods in clinical trials,” she added.

The authors acknowledged that lengthier studies in larger cohorts were needed to see which patients will develop long-term chronic postacute sequelae of COVID.

This research was supported by the Wilke Family Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Merck, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Saint John’s Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Heath is a cofounder of Pact Pharma. He and several coauthors disclosed various ties to multiple private-sector companies. Mr. Chen and Dr. Chou had no competing interests.

*Correction, 1/28: An earlier version of this story misidentified Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 26-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of sudden-onset left-side chest pain and mild dyspnea that started while he was playing basketball. He denies any medical problems and takes no medications. He is able to speak in complete sentences as he answers your questions. His O₂ saturation is 95% and a chest x-ray reveals a left-side, moderate-to-large pneumothorax.

A primary spontaneous pneumothorax is one that occurs in the absence of underlying clinical lung disease and is not associated with an inciting cause, such as a rib fracture.² In the United States, the estimated incidence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax is 7.4 cases per 100,000 men and 1.2 cases per 100,000 women.³ The etiology is often unknown, but it is associated with several risk factors, including male sex, smoking, and a tall, thin body habitus.²

The management strategy for stable patients with a primary spontaneous pneumothorax largely depends on pneumothorax size and institutional practice. Multiple methods define pneumothorax size; the US standard cutoff for a small or large pneumothorax is 3 cm, between the pleural line and chest wall at the level of the apex,⁴ compared with 2 cm in Europe, when evaluating the distance at the hilum in an upright chest radiograph.⁵ The Collins method uses a formula to calculate the percentage of lung area affected based on 3 distinct measurements on a posterior/anterior upright chest radiograph.⁶

Management options include observation, supplemental oxygen, simple aspiration, and thoracostomy or chest tube placement. British Thoracic Society guidelines published in 2010 state that only a small pneumothorax can be managed conservatively with observation alone; for a large pneumothorax, the guidelines recommend needle aspiration to achieve lung reinflation, followed by chest tube placement if unsuccessful.⁵

In practice, management of a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax varies, but the most common treatment is chest tube placement.⁷ This procedure can be painful and may result in complications such as bleeding, infection, injury to internal structures, or the need for surgical intervention.⁷ In addition, once a chest tube is placed, hospital admission ensues, lasting an average of 4 days.⁸ Given these consequences, there is a need for safe and feasible treatment options for a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

STUDY SUMMARY

Observational management judged noninferior, with multiple advantages

The Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax (PSP) trial was a prospective noninferiority trial conducted at 39 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. This randomized controlled trial compared observational (“watch and wait”) vs interventional (chest tube placement) management of uncomplicated, unilateral, primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients ages 14 to 50 years with a moderate-to-large pneumothorax—32% or greater, as defined by the Collins method⁴—were randomly assigned to a study group to examine the primary outcome of lung reexpansion at 8 weeks.

“Watch-and-wait” management spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention.

The intervention included chest tube insertion attached to an underwater seal without suction for 1 hour, followed by an x-ray and clamping for 4 hours if there was no air leak, followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If there was no evidence of radiographic resolution, or if during observation the pneumothorax recurred, the underwater seal was recommenced and the patient was admitted to the hospital, with further intervention at the discretion of the inpatient clinicians. If radiographic improvement was seen, the tube was removed and the patient discharged.

Continue to: In contrast...

In contrast, conservative management entailed patient observation for at least 4 hours followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If after the observation period, patients were walking comfortably and without supplemental oxygen, they were discharged. Patients in the observation group underwent an intervention if they met a variety of criteria, including unstable vitals or an enlarging pneumothorax. All patients received standard care with analgesia and supplemental oxygen as needed.

A total of 316 patients were randomized, with 154 assigned to the intervention group and 162 to the observation group. The mean age for all participants was 26. Most patients were male (84.4% in the intervention group and 87.7% in the observation group) and almost half were current smokers (49.3% in the intervention and 42.5% in the observation group). The mean body mass index of participants was 21.4 in the intervention and 21.3 in the observation group. Twenty-five patients (15%) in the observation group underwent interventions for reasons specified in the research protocol (eg, “significant symptoms” such as abnormal physiologic observations and intolerable symptoms, or patient unwillingness to continue in the assigned group), and 10 patients assigned to the intervention group declined treatment.

Using a complete-case analysis, 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) in the intervention group and 118 of 125 patients (94.4%) in the observation group met the primary outcome of radiographic resolution within 8 weeks (risk difference [RD] = –4.1%; 95% CI, –8.6 to 0.5), thereby falling within the prespecified margin for noninferiority of less than 9%.

This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients with spontaneous pneumothorax in an outpatient setting.

Per-protocol analysis at 8 weeks also proved observational management noninferior, with 124 of 126 patients (98.4%) in the intervention group and 123 of 130 patients (94.6%) in the observation group achieving lung reexpansion within 8 weeks (RD = –3.8%; 95% CI, –8.3 to 0.7). The time to symptom resolution was similar between groups, with a median time of 15.5 days in the intervention group compared with 14 days in the observation group (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4). A lower risk of serious adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.37-8.1) and pneumothorax recurrence (absolute RD = 8%; 95% CI, 0.5-15.4) occurred in the observation group vs the intervention group. The average length of hospital stay for patients in the intervention group was 6.1 days, vs 1.6 days in the observation group (RR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).

Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed because multiple study participants were lost to follow-up or had data collected after 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained when data collected after the 8-week visit were included and extended to 63 days (RD = –3.7%: 95% CI, –7.9 to 0.6). However, noninferiority was lost when missing data after 8 weeks were deemed “treatment failure” (RD = –11%; 95% CI, –18.4 to –3.5).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Conservative management enabled most patients to avoid invasive Tx risks

In this specific patient population, conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management and had a lower risk of serious adverse events. This management practice spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention. As a result, they experienced a shortened hospital stay, fewer days missed from school or work, less exposure to radiation from repeat chest x-rays, and a lower rate of adverse events. Additionally, fewer of these patients had early pneumothorax recurrence.

CAVEATS

There were limitations in the trial’s original statistical design

This study had a specific follow-up timetable, and some of the participants were not examined until after the 8-week checkpoint or were lost to follow-up entirely. The authors attempted to address these limitations (and show transparency) by providing additional sensitivity analyses as well as providing the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome at 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained in all analyses except for the sensitivity analysis that treated missing data as treatment failure. Therefore, the authors note these approaches result in “statistical fragility” and are exploratory.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Pneumothorax is not commonly seen in outpatient settings

Family physicians working in outpatient settings generally do not encounter pneumothorax and, using current guidelines, would refer for emergency or inpatient care. This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients in an outpatient setting; however, this would require at least a 4-hour period of observation, which may be impractical for many outpatient-based physicians. Additionally, the study uses the Collins method to define moderate-to-large pneumothorax, which is likely an uncommon practice and thus not applicable in most primary care settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 26-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of sudden-onset left-side chest pain and mild dyspnea that started while he was playing basketball. He denies any medical problems and takes no medications. He is able to speak in complete sentences as he answers your questions. His O₂ saturation is 95% and a chest x-ray reveals a left-side, moderate-to-large pneumothorax.

A primary spontaneous pneumothorax is one that occurs in the absence of underlying clinical lung disease and is not associated with an inciting cause, such as a rib fracture.² In the United States, the estimated incidence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax is 7.4 cases per 100,000 men and 1.2 cases per 100,000 women.³ The etiology is often unknown, but it is associated with several risk factors, including male sex, smoking, and a tall, thin body habitus.²

The management strategy for stable patients with a primary spontaneous pneumothorax largely depends on pneumothorax size and institutional practice. Multiple methods define pneumothorax size; the US standard cutoff for a small or large pneumothorax is 3 cm, between the pleural line and chest wall at the level of the apex,⁴ compared with 2 cm in Europe, when evaluating the distance at the hilum in an upright chest radiograph.⁵ The Collins method uses a formula to calculate the percentage of lung area affected based on 3 distinct measurements on a posterior/anterior upright chest radiograph.⁶

Management options include observation, supplemental oxygen, simple aspiration, and thoracostomy or chest tube placement. British Thoracic Society guidelines published in 2010 state that only a small pneumothorax can be managed conservatively with observation alone; for a large pneumothorax, the guidelines recommend needle aspiration to achieve lung reinflation, followed by chest tube placement if unsuccessful.⁵

In practice, management of a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax varies, but the most common treatment is chest tube placement.⁷ This procedure can be painful and may result in complications such as bleeding, infection, injury to internal structures, or the need for surgical intervention.⁷ In addition, once a chest tube is placed, hospital admission ensues, lasting an average of 4 days.⁸ Given these consequences, there is a need for safe and feasible treatment options for a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

STUDY SUMMARY

Observational management judged noninferior, with multiple advantages

The Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax (PSP) trial was a prospective noninferiority trial conducted at 39 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. This randomized controlled trial compared observational (“watch and wait”) vs interventional (chest tube placement) management of uncomplicated, unilateral, primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients ages 14 to 50 years with a moderate-to-large pneumothorax—32% or greater, as defined by the Collins method⁴—were randomly assigned to a study group to examine the primary outcome of lung reexpansion at 8 weeks.

“Watch-and-wait” management spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention.

The intervention included chest tube insertion attached to an underwater seal without suction for 1 hour, followed by an x-ray and clamping for 4 hours if there was no air leak, followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If there was no evidence of radiographic resolution, or if during observation the pneumothorax recurred, the underwater seal was recommenced and the patient was admitted to the hospital, with further intervention at the discretion of the inpatient clinicians. If radiographic improvement was seen, the tube was removed and the patient discharged.

Continue to: In contrast...

In contrast, conservative management entailed patient observation for at least 4 hours followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If after the observation period, patients were walking comfortably and without supplemental oxygen, they were discharged. Patients in the observation group underwent an intervention if they met a variety of criteria, including unstable vitals or an enlarging pneumothorax. All patients received standard care with analgesia and supplemental oxygen as needed.

A total of 316 patients were randomized, with 154 assigned to the intervention group and 162 to the observation group. The mean age for all participants was 26. Most patients were male (84.4% in the intervention group and 87.7% in the observation group) and almost half were current smokers (49.3% in the intervention and 42.5% in the observation group). The mean body mass index of participants was 21.4 in the intervention and 21.3 in the observation group. Twenty-five patients (15%) in the observation group underwent interventions for reasons specified in the research protocol (eg, “significant symptoms” such as abnormal physiologic observations and intolerable symptoms, or patient unwillingness to continue in the assigned group), and 10 patients assigned to the intervention group declined treatment.

Using a complete-case analysis, 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) in the intervention group and 118 of 125 patients (94.4%) in the observation group met the primary outcome of radiographic resolution within 8 weeks (risk difference [RD] = –4.1%; 95% CI, –8.6 to 0.5), thereby falling within the prespecified margin for noninferiority of less than 9%.

This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients with spontaneous pneumothorax in an outpatient setting.

Per-protocol analysis at 8 weeks also proved observational management noninferior, with 124 of 126 patients (98.4%) in the intervention group and 123 of 130 patients (94.6%) in the observation group achieving lung reexpansion within 8 weeks (RD = –3.8%; 95% CI, –8.3 to 0.7). The time to symptom resolution was similar between groups, with a median time of 15.5 days in the intervention group compared with 14 days in the observation group (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4). A lower risk of serious adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.37-8.1) and pneumothorax recurrence (absolute RD = 8%; 95% CI, 0.5-15.4) occurred in the observation group vs the intervention group. The average length of hospital stay for patients in the intervention group was 6.1 days, vs 1.6 days in the observation group (RR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).

Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed because multiple study participants were lost to follow-up or had data collected after 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained when data collected after the 8-week visit were included and extended to 63 days (RD = –3.7%: 95% CI, –7.9 to 0.6). However, noninferiority was lost when missing data after 8 weeks were deemed “treatment failure” (RD = –11%; 95% CI, –18.4 to –3.5).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Conservative management enabled most patients to avoid invasive Tx risks

In this specific patient population, conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management and had a lower risk of serious adverse events. This management practice spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention. As a result, they experienced a shortened hospital stay, fewer days missed from school or work, less exposure to radiation from repeat chest x-rays, and a lower rate of adverse events. Additionally, fewer of these patients had early pneumothorax recurrence.

CAVEATS

There were limitations in the trial’s original statistical design

This study had a specific follow-up timetable, and some of the participants were not examined until after the 8-week checkpoint or were lost to follow-up entirely. The authors attempted to address these limitations (and show transparency) by providing additional sensitivity analyses as well as providing the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome at 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained in all analyses except for the sensitivity analysis that treated missing data as treatment failure. Therefore, the authors note these approaches result in “statistical fragility” and are exploratory.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Pneumothorax is not commonly seen in outpatient settings

Family physicians working in outpatient settings generally do not encounter pneumothorax and, using current guidelines, would refer for emergency or inpatient care. This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients in an outpatient setting; however, this would require at least a 4-hour period of observation, which may be impractical for many outpatient-based physicians. Additionally, the study uses the Collins method to define moderate-to-large pneumothorax, which is likely an uncommon practice and thus not applicable in most primary care settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 26-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of sudden-onset left-side chest pain and mild dyspnea that started while he was playing basketball. He denies any medical problems and takes no medications. He is able to speak in complete sentences as he answers your questions. His O₂ saturation is 95% and a chest x-ray reveals a left-side, moderate-to-large pneumothorax.

A primary spontaneous pneumothorax is one that occurs in the absence of underlying clinical lung disease and is not associated with an inciting cause, such as a rib fracture.² In the United States, the estimated incidence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax is 7.4 cases per 100,000 men and 1.2 cases per 100,000 women.³ The etiology is often unknown, but it is associated with several risk factors, including male sex, smoking, and a tall, thin body habitus.²

The management strategy for stable patients with a primary spontaneous pneumothorax largely depends on pneumothorax size and institutional practice. Multiple methods define pneumothorax size; the US standard cutoff for a small or large pneumothorax is 3 cm, between the pleural line and chest wall at the level of the apex,⁴ compared with 2 cm in Europe, when evaluating the distance at the hilum in an upright chest radiograph.⁵ The Collins method uses a formula to calculate the percentage of lung area affected based on 3 distinct measurements on a posterior/anterior upright chest radiograph.⁶

Management options include observation, supplemental oxygen, simple aspiration, and thoracostomy or chest tube placement. British Thoracic Society guidelines published in 2010 state that only a small pneumothorax can be managed conservatively with observation alone; for a large pneumothorax, the guidelines recommend needle aspiration to achieve lung reinflation, followed by chest tube placement if unsuccessful.⁵

In practice, management of a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax varies, but the most common treatment is chest tube placement.⁷ This procedure can be painful and may result in complications such as bleeding, infection, injury to internal structures, or the need for surgical intervention.⁷ In addition, once a chest tube is placed, hospital admission ensues, lasting an average of 4 days.⁸ Given these consequences, there is a need for safe and feasible treatment options for a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

STUDY SUMMARY

Observational management judged noninferior, with multiple advantages

The Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax (PSP) trial was a prospective noninferiority trial conducted at 39 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. This randomized controlled trial compared observational (“watch and wait”) vs interventional (chest tube placement) management of uncomplicated, unilateral, primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients ages 14 to 50 years with a moderate-to-large pneumothorax—32% or greater, as defined by the Collins method⁴—were randomly assigned to a study group to examine the primary outcome of lung reexpansion at 8 weeks.

“Watch-and-wait” management spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention.

The intervention included chest tube insertion attached to an underwater seal without suction for 1 hour, followed by an x-ray and clamping for 4 hours if there was no air leak, followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If there was no evidence of radiographic resolution, or if during observation the pneumothorax recurred, the underwater seal was recommenced and the patient was admitted to the hospital, with further intervention at the discretion of the inpatient clinicians. If radiographic improvement was seen, the tube was removed and the patient discharged.

Continue to: In contrast...

In contrast, conservative management entailed patient observation for at least 4 hours followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If after the observation period, patients were walking comfortably and without supplemental oxygen, they were discharged. Patients in the observation group underwent an intervention if they met a variety of criteria, including unstable vitals or an enlarging pneumothorax. All patients received standard care with analgesia and supplemental oxygen as needed.

A total of 316 patients were randomized, with 154 assigned to the intervention group and 162 to the observation group. The mean age for all participants was 26. Most patients were male (84.4% in the intervention group and 87.7% in the observation group) and almost half were current smokers (49.3% in the intervention and 42.5% in the observation group). The mean body mass index of participants was 21.4 in the intervention and 21.3 in the observation group. Twenty-five patients (15%) in the observation group underwent interventions for reasons specified in the research protocol (eg, “significant symptoms” such as abnormal physiologic observations and intolerable symptoms, or patient unwillingness to continue in the assigned group), and 10 patients assigned to the intervention group declined treatment.

Using a complete-case analysis, 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) in the intervention group and 118 of 125 patients (94.4%) in the observation group met the primary outcome of radiographic resolution within 8 weeks (risk difference [RD] = –4.1%; 95% CI, –8.6 to 0.5), thereby falling within the prespecified margin for noninferiority of less than 9%.

This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients with spontaneous pneumothorax in an outpatient setting.

Per-protocol analysis at 8 weeks also proved observational management noninferior, with 124 of 126 patients (98.4%) in the intervention group and 123 of 130 patients (94.6%) in the observation group achieving lung reexpansion within 8 weeks (RD = –3.8%; 95% CI, –8.3 to 0.7). The time to symptom resolution was similar between groups, with a median time of 15.5 days in the intervention group compared with 14 days in the observation group (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4). A lower risk of serious adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.37-8.1) and pneumothorax recurrence (absolute RD = 8%; 95% CI, 0.5-15.4) occurred in the observation group vs the intervention group. The average length of hospital stay for patients in the intervention group was 6.1 days, vs 1.6 days in the observation group (RR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).

Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed because multiple study participants were lost to follow-up or had data collected after 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained when data collected after the 8-week visit were included and extended to 63 days (RD = –3.7%: 95% CI, –7.9 to 0.6). However, noninferiority was lost when missing data after 8 weeks were deemed “treatment failure” (RD = –11%; 95% CI, –18.4 to –3.5).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Conservative management enabled most patients to avoid invasive Tx risks

In this specific patient population, conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management and had a lower risk of serious adverse events. This management practice spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention. As a result, they experienced a shortened hospital stay, fewer days missed from school or work, less exposure to radiation from repeat chest x-rays, and a lower rate of adverse events. Additionally, fewer of these patients had early pneumothorax recurrence.

CAVEATS

There were limitations in the trial’s original statistical design

This study had a specific follow-up timetable, and some of the participants were not examined until after the 8-week checkpoint or were lost to follow-up entirely. The authors attempted to address these limitations (and show transparency) by providing additional sensitivity analyses as well as providing the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome at 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained in all analyses except for the sensitivity analysis that treated missing data as treatment failure. Therefore, the authors note these approaches result in “statistical fragility” and are exploratory.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Pneumothorax is not commonly seen in outpatient settings

Family physicians working in outpatient settings generally do not encounter pneumothorax and, using current guidelines, would refer for emergency or inpatient care. This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients in an outpatient setting; however, this would require at least a 4-hour period of observation, which may be impractical for many outpatient-based physicians. Additionally, the study uses the Collins method to define moderate-to-large pneumothorax, which is likely an uncommon practice and thus not applicable in most primary care settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

THE CASE

A 58-year-old African American man with a past medical history of prostate cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease presented to our office to establish care with a new provider. He complained of bilateral shoulder pain, that was worse on the right side, for the past year. He denied any previous falls, trauma, or injury. He reported that lifting his grandkids was becoming increasingly difficult due to the pain but denied any weakness or neurologic symptoms. He had been using over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which provided minimal relief.

On physical examination, the overlying skin was normal and there was no tenderness to palpation. His shoulder range of motion was limited with complete flexion, but otherwise intact. Muscle strength was 5 out of 5 bilaterally, and neurovascular and sensory examinations were normal. On the right side, the Empty Can Test was positive, but the Neer and Apley tests were negative. All testing was negative on the left side.

The patient was referred for 10 sessions of physical therapy, which he completed. His pain persisted, and an x-ray of his right shoulder was performed. The x-ray indicated a high-riding humeral head, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the right shoulder was recommended due to possible rotator cuff tendinopathy.

The MRI demonstrated a full-thickness tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon along with “metastatic lesions” (FIGURE). As a result, a bone scan was obtained and revealed activity in the proximal right humerus; however, it was nonconclusive for osteoblastic metastasis. A positron emission tomography (PET) scan was ordered, which revealed findings suggestive of bony metastasis in the proximal left tibia, distal shaft of the right tibia, and the right and left humeral heads. The patient was then scheduled for a bone biopsy; a chest, abdomen, and pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan with IV and oral contrast was also ordered.

THE DIAGNOSIS

A bone biopsy of the left tibia indicated prominent non-necrotizing granulomatous inflammation and stains were negative for microorganisms. The CT scan demonstrated peribronchial vascular reticulonodular opacities in the upper lung zones compatible with sarcoidosis; no metastatic lesions were identified. Laboratory studies were obtained and demonstrated an elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) level consistent with sarcoidosis. The cumulative test results pointed to a diagnosis of osseous sarcoidosis.

DISCUSSION

Osseous sarcoidosis is a rare manifestation of larger systemic disease. It is estimated that bony lesions occur in only 3% to 13% of patients with sarcoidosis.¹ Bone involvement is most common in African Americans and occurs primarily in the hands and feet.^1-3

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment. Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.

Osseous lesions are comprised of noncaseating granulomatous inflammation.^4,5 They are often asymptomatic but can be painful and associated with overlying skin disease and soft-tissue swelling.^1,4 Although it’s not typical, patients may present with symptoms such as pain, stiffness, or fractures. On CT imaging and MRI (as in this case), osseous lesions can be confused with metastatic bone disease, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis.⁴

Continue to: There are multiple patterns of bone involvement

There are multiple patterns of bone involvement in osseous sarcoidosis, ranging from large cystic lesions that can lead to stress fractures to “tunnels” or “lace-like” reticulated patterns found in the bones of the hands and feet. ^2,3,5,6 Long bone involvement is typically limited to the proximal and distal thirds of the bone.⁶ Sarcoidosis is also known to involve the axial skeleton, and less commonly, the cranial vault.⁶ Although multiple variations may manifest over time, skin changes usually precede bone lesions^3,6; however, that was not the case with this patient.

Treatment entails pain management

Up to 50% of patients with bone lesions are symptomatic and may require treatment.^3,5 Treatment is reserved for these symptomatic patients, with the goal of pain reduction.^2,3,7

Low- to moderate-dose corticosteroids have been shown to relieve soft-tissue swelling and decrease pain.^2,3,7 A prolonged course of steroids is not recommended, due to the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, and does not normalize bone structure.^3,7

Other options. NSAIDs, such as colchicine and indomethacin, have also been found to be effective in pain management.⁷ Treatments such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may be considered for those cases that are refractory to steroids.²

Given the extent of our patient’s disease, he was referred to multiple specialists to rule out further organ involvement. He was found to have neurosarcoidosis on brain imaging and was subsequently treated with prednisone 10 mg/d. The patient is being routinely monitored for active disease at various intervals or as symptoms arise.

THE TAKEAWAY

Consideration for systemic diseases (eg, sarcoidosis) should be given to patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints without a significant history of trauma or injury. In those with risk factors associated with a higher incidence of sarcoidosis, such as age and race, a work-up should include imaging and biopsy. Treatment (eg, corticosteroids, NSAIDs) is provided to those patients who are symptomatic, with the goal of symptom relief.³

Approximately 3% of youth who tested positive for COVID-19 in an emergency department setting had severe outcomes after 2 weeks, but this risk was 0.5% among those not admitted to the hospital, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals aged 18 and younger.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth younger than 18 years accounted for fewer than 5% of reported cases, but now account for approximately 25% of positive cases, wrote Anna L. Funk, PhD, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and colleagues.

However, the risk of severe outcomes of youth with COVID-19 remains poorly understood and data from large studies are lacking, they noted.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 3,221 children and adolescents who were tested for COVID-19 at one of 41 emergency departments in 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States between March 2020 and June 2021. Positive infections were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. At 14 days’ follow-up after a positive test, 735 patients (22.8%), were hospitalized, 107 (3.3%) had severe outcomes, and 4 (0.12%) had died. Severe outcomes were significantly more likely in children aged 5-10 years and 10-18 years vs. less than 1 year (odds ratios, 1.60 and 2.39, respectively), and in children with a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34) or a prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15).

Severe outcomes were more likely in patients who presented with symptoms that started 4-7 days before seeking care, compared with those whose symptoms started 0-3 days before seeking care (OR, 2.22).

The researchers also reviewed data from a subgroup of 2,510 individuals who were discharged home from the ED after initial testing. At 14 days’ follow-up, 50 of these patients (2.0%) were hospitalized and 12 (0.5%) had severe outcomes. In addition, the researchers found that the risk of severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19–positive youth was nearly four times higher, compared with hospitalized youth who tested negative for COVID-19 (risk difference, 3.9%).

Previous retrospective studies of severe outcomes in children and adolescents with COVID-19 have yielded varying results, in part because of the variation in study populations, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Our study population provides a risk estimate for youths brought for ED care.” Therefore, “Our lower estimate of severe disease likely reflects our stringent definition, which required the occurrence of complications or specific invasive interventions,” they said.

The study limitations included the potential overestimation of the risk of severe outcomes because patients were recruited in the ED, the researchers noted. Other limitations included variation in regional case definitions, screening criteria, and testing capacity among different sites and time periods. “Thus, 5% of our SARS-CoV-2–positive participants were asymptomatic – most of whom were tested as they were positive contacts of known cases or as part of routine screening procedures,” they said. The findings also are not generalizable to all community EDs and did not account for variants, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the ability to compare outcomes for children with positive tests to similar children with negative tests, and add to the literature showing an increased risk of severe outcomes for those hospitalized with positive tests, the researchers concluded.
 

Data may inform clinical decisions

“The data [in the current study] are concerning for severe outcomes for children even prior to the Omicron strain,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FP-BC, of Children’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee Hospital, in an interview. “Presently, the number of children infected with the Omicron strain is much higher and hospitalizations among children are at their highest since COVID-19 began,” she said. “For medical providers caring for this population, the study sheds light on pediatric patients who may be at higher risk of severe illness when they become infected with COVID-19,” she added.

“I was surprised by how high the number of pediatric patients hospitalized (22%) and the percentage (3%) with severe disease were during this time,” given that the timeline for these data preceded the spread of the Omicron strain, said Ms. Thew. “The risk of prior pneumonia was quite surprising. I do not recall seeing prior pneumonia as a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 with children or adults,” she added.

The take-home messaging for clinicians caring for children and adolescents is the added knowledge of the risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19, including the 10-18 age range, chronic illness, prior pneumonia, and longer symptom duration before seeking care in the ED, Ms. Thew emphasized.

However, additional research is needed on the impact of the new strains of COVID-19 on pediatric and adolescent hospitalizations, Ms. Thew said. Research also is needed on the other illnesses that have resulted from COVID-19, including illness requiring antibiotic use or medical interventions or treatments, and on the risk of combined COVID-19 and influenza viruses, she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Alberta Health Services University of Calgary Clinical Research Fund, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Lead author Dr. Funk was supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High Post-Doctoral Research Fund, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 3% of youth who tested positive for COVID-19 in an emergency department setting had severe outcomes after 2 weeks, but this risk was 0.5% among those not admitted to the hospital, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals aged 18 and younger.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth younger than 18 years accounted for fewer than 5% of reported cases, but now account for approximately 25% of positive cases, wrote Anna L. Funk, PhD, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and colleagues.

However, the risk of severe outcomes of youth with COVID-19 remains poorly understood and data from large studies are lacking, they noted.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 3,221 children and adolescents who were tested for COVID-19 at one of 41 emergency departments in 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States between March 2020 and June 2021. Positive infections were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. At 14 days’ follow-up after a positive test, 735 patients (22.8%), were hospitalized, 107 (3.3%) had severe outcomes, and 4 (0.12%) had died. Severe outcomes were significantly more likely in children aged 5-10 years and 10-18 years vs. less than 1 year (odds ratios, 1.60 and 2.39, respectively), and in children with a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34) or a prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15).

Severe outcomes were more likely in patients who presented with symptoms that started 4-7 days before seeking care, compared with those whose symptoms started 0-3 days before seeking care (OR, 2.22).

The researchers also reviewed data from a subgroup of 2,510 individuals who were discharged home from the ED after initial testing. At 14 days’ follow-up, 50 of these patients (2.0%) were hospitalized and 12 (0.5%) had severe outcomes. In addition, the researchers found that the risk of severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19–positive youth was nearly four times higher, compared with hospitalized youth who tested negative for COVID-19 (risk difference, 3.9%).

Previous retrospective studies of severe outcomes in children and adolescents with COVID-19 have yielded varying results, in part because of the variation in study populations, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Our study population provides a risk estimate for youths brought for ED care.” Therefore, “Our lower estimate of severe disease likely reflects our stringent definition, which required the occurrence of complications or specific invasive interventions,” they said.

The study limitations included the potential overestimation of the risk of severe outcomes because patients were recruited in the ED, the researchers noted. Other limitations included variation in regional case definitions, screening criteria, and testing capacity among different sites and time periods. “Thus, 5% of our SARS-CoV-2–positive participants were asymptomatic – most of whom were tested as they were positive contacts of known cases or as part of routine screening procedures,” they said. The findings also are not generalizable to all community EDs and did not account for variants, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the ability to compare outcomes for children with positive tests to similar children with negative tests, and add to the literature showing an increased risk of severe outcomes for those hospitalized with positive tests, the researchers concluded.
 

Data may inform clinical decisions

“The data [in the current study] are concerning for severe outcomes for children even prior to the Omicron strain,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FP-BC, of Children’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee Hospital, in an interview. “Presently, the number of children infected with the Omicron strain is much higher and hospitalizations among children are at their highest since COVID-19 began,” she said. “For medical providers caring for this population, the study sheds light on pediatric patients who may be at higher risk of severe illness when they become infected with COVID-19,” she added.

“I was surprised by how high the number of pediatric patients hospitalized (22%) and the percentage (3%) with severe disease were during this time,” given that the timeline for these data preceded the spread of the Omicron strain, said Ms. Thew. “The risk of prior pneumonia was quite surprising. I do not recall seeing prior pneumonia as a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 with children or adults,” she added.

The take-home messaging for clinicians caring for children and adolescents is the added knowledge of the risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19, including the 10-18 age range, chronic illness, prior pneumonia, and longer symptom duration before seeking care in the ED, Ms. Thew emphasized.

However, additional research is needed on the impact of the new strains of COVID-19 on pediatric and adolescent hospitalizations, Ms. Thew said. Research also is needed on the other illnesses that have resulted from COVID-19, including illness requiring antibiotic use or medical interventions or treatments, and on the risk of combined COVID-19 and influenza viruses, she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Alberta Health Services University of Calgary Clinical Research Fund, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Lead author Dr. Funk was supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High Post-Doctoral Research Fund, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 3% of youth who tested positive for COVID-19 in an emergency department setting had severe outcomes after 2 weeks, but this risk was 0.5% among those not admitted to the hospital, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals aged 18 and younger.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, youth younger than 18 years accounted for fewer than 5% of reported cases, but now account for approximately 25% of positive cases, wrote Anna L. Funk, PhD, of the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and colleagues.

However, the risk of severe outcomes of youth with COVID-19 remains poorly understood and data from large studies are lacking, they noted.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 3,221 children and adolescents who were tested for COVID-19 at one of 41 emergency departments in 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States between March 2020 and June 2021. Positive infections were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. At 14 days’ follow-up after a positive test, 735 patients (22.8%), were hospitalized, 107 (3.3%) had severe outcomes, and 4 (0.12%) had died. Severe outcomes were significantly more likely in children aged 5-10 years and 10-18 years vs. less than 1 year (odds ratios, 1.60 and 2.39, respectively), and in children with a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34) or a prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15).

Severe outcomes were more likely in patients who presented with symptoms that started 4-7 days before seeking care, compared with those whose symptoms started 0-3 days before seeking care (OR, 2.22).

The researchers also reviewed data from a subgroup of 2,510 individuals who were discharged home from the ED after initial testing. At 14 days’ follow-up, 50 of these patients (2.0%) were hospitalized and 12 (0.5%) had severe outcomes. In addition, the researchers found that the risk of severe outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19–positive youth was nearly four times higher, compared with hospitalized youth who tested negative for COVID-19 (risk difference, 3.9%).

Previous retrospective studies of severe outcomes in children and adolescents with COVID-19 have yielded varying results, in part because of the variation in study populations, the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Our study population provides a risk estimate for youths brought for ED care.” Therefore, “Our lower estimate of severe disease likely reflects our stringent definition, which required the occurrence of complications or specific invasive interventions,” they said.

The study limitations included the potential overestimation of the risk of severe outcomes because patients were recruited in the ED, the researchers noted. Other limitations included variation in regional case definitions, screening criteria, and testing capacity among different sites and time periods. “Thus, 5% of our SARS-CoV-2–positive participants were asymptomatic – most of whom were tested as they were positive contacts of known cases or as part of routine screening procedures,” they said. The findings also are not generalizable to all community EDs and did not account for variants, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the ability to compare outcomes for children with positive tests to similar children with negative tests, and add to the literature showing an increased risk of severe outcomes for those hospitalized with positive tests, the researchers concluded.
 

Data may inform clinical decisions

“The data [in the current study] are concerning for severe outcomes for children even prior to the Omicron strain,” said Margaret Thew, DNP, FP-BC, of Children’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee Hospital, in an interview. “Presently, the number of children infected with the Omicron strain is much higher and hospitalizations among children are at their highest since COVID-19 began,” she said. “For medical providers caring for this population, the study sheds light on pediatric patients who may be at higher risk of severe illness when they become infected with COVID-19,” she added.

“I was surprised by how high the number of pediatric patients hospitalized (22%) and the percentage (3%) with severe disease were during this time,” given that the timeline for these data preceded the spread of the Omicron strain, said Ms. Thew. “The risk of prior pneumonia was quite surprising. I do not recall seeing prior pneumonia as a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 with children or adults,” she added.

The take-home messaging for clinicians caring for children and adolescents is the added knowledge of the risk factors for severe outcomes from COVID-19, including the 10-18 age range, chronic illness, prior pneumonia, and longer symptom duration before seeking care in the ED, Ms. Thew emphasized.

However, additional research is needed on the impact of the new strains of COVID-19 on pediatric and adolescent hospitalizations, Ms. Thew said. Research also is needed on the other illnesses that have resulted from COVID-19, including illness requiring antibiotic use or medical interventions or treatments, and on the risk of combined COVID-19 and influenza viruses, she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Alberta Health Services University of Calgary Clinical Research Fund, the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, the COVID-19 Research Accelerator Funding Track (CRAFT) Program at the University of California, Davis, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Division of Emergency Medicine Small Grants Program. Lead author Dr. Funk was supported by the University of Calgary Eyes-High Post-Doctoral Research Fund, but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Thew had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

The evidence is in: Less is more when it comes to treating uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in young children. Five days of antibiotic therapy resulted in a superior clinical response compared to 10 days of treatment and had the added benefit of a lower risk of inducing antibiotic resistance, according to the randomized, controlled SCOUT-CAP trial.

“Several studies have shown shorter antibiotic courses to be non-inferior to the standard treatment strategy, but in our study, we show that a shortened 5-day course of therapy was superior to standard therapy because the short course achieved similar outcomes with fewer days of antibiotics,” Derek Williams, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an email.

“These data are immediately applicable to frontline clinicians, and we hope this study will shift the paradigm towards more judicious treatment approaches for childhood pneumonia, resulting in care that is safer and more effective,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 18 in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Uncomplicated CAP

The study enrolled children aged 6 months to 71 months diagnosed with uncomplicated CAP who demonstrated early clinical improvement in response to 5 days of antibiotic treatment. Participants were prescribed either amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavulanate, or cefdinir according to standard of care and were randomized on day 6 to another 5 days of their initially prescribed antibiotic course or to placebo.

“Those assessed on day 6 were eligible only if they had not yet received a dose of antibiotic therapy on that day,” the authors write. The primary endpoint was end-of-treatment response, adjusted for the duration of antibiotic risk as assessed by RADAR. As the authors explain, RADAR is a composite endpoint that ranks each child’s clinical response, resolution of symptoms, and antibiotic-associated adverse effects (AEs) in an ordinal desirability of outcome ranking, or DOOR.

“There were no differences between strategies in the DOOR or in its individual components,” Dr. Williams and colleagues point out. A total of 380 children took part in the study. The mean age of participants was 35.7 months, and half were male.

Over 90% of children randomized to active therapy were prescribed amoxicillin. “Fewer than 10% of children in either strategy had an inadequate clinical response,” the authors report.

However, the 5-day antibiotic strategy had a 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) probability of children achieving a more desirable RADAR outcome compared with the standard, 10-day course, as assessed either on days 6 to 10 at outcome assessment visit one (OAV1) or at OAV2 on days 19 to 25.

There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of participants with persistent symptoms at either assessment point, they note. At assessment visit one, 40% of children assigned to the short-course strategy and 37% of children assigned to the 10-day strategy reported an antibiotic-related AE, most of which were mild.
 

Resistome analysis

Some 171 children were included in a resistome analysis in which throat swabs were collected between study days 19 and 25 to quantify antibiotic resistance genes in oropharyngeal flora. The total number of resistance genes per prokaryotic cell (RGPC) was significantly lower in children treated with antibiotics for 5 days compared with children who were treated for 10 days.

Specifically, the median number of total RGPC was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43) for the short-course strategy and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.46-11.08) for the standard-course strategy (P = .01). Similarly, the median number of β-lactamase RGPC was 0.55 (0.18-1.24) for the short-course strategy and 0.60 (0.21-2.45) for the standard-course strategy (P = .03).

“Providing the shortest duration of antibiotics necessary to effectively treat an infection is a central tenet of antimicrobial stewardship and a convenient and cost-effective strategy for caregivers,” the authors observe. For example, reducing treatment from 10 to 5 days for outpatient CAP could reduce the number of days spent on antibiotics by up to 7.5 million days in the U.S. each year.

“If we can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, we can minimize antibiotic side effects while also helping to slow antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Williams pointed out.

Fewer days of having to give their child repeated doses of antibiotics is also more convenient for families, he added.

Asked to comment on the study, David Greenberg, MD, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, explained that the length of antibiotic therapy as recommended by various guidelines is more or less arbitrary, some infections being excepted.

“There have been no studies evaluating the recommendation for a 100-day treatment course, and it’s kind of a joke because if you look at the treatment of just about any infection, it’s either for 7 days or 14 days or even 20 days because it’s easy to calculate – it’s not that anybody proved that treatment of whatever infection it is should last this long,” he told this news organization.

Moreover, adherence to a shorter antibiotic course is much better than it is to a longer course. If, for example, physicians tell a mother to take two bottles of antibiotics for a treatment course of 10 days, she’ll finish the first bottle which is good for 5 days and, because the child is fine, “she forgets about the second bottle,” Dr. Greenberg said.

In one of the first studies to compare a short versus long course of antibiotic therapy in uncomplicated CAP in young children, Dr. Greenberg and colleagues initially compared a 3-day course of high-dose amoxicillin to a 10-day course of the same treatment, but the 3-day course was associated with an unacceptable failure rate. (At the time, the World Health Organization was recommending a 3-day course of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated CAP in children.)

They stopped the study and then initiated a second study in which they compared a 5-day course of the same antibiotic to a 10-day course and found the 5-day course was comparable to the 10-day course in terms of clinical cure rates. As a result of his study, Dr. Greenberg has long since prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for his own patients.

“Five days is good,” he affirmed. “And if patients start a 10-day course of an antibiotic for, say, a urinary tract infection and a subsequent culture comes back negative, they don’t have to finish the antibiotics either.” Dr. Greenberg said.

Dr. Williams said he has no financial ties to industry. Dr. Greenberg said he has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. He is also a founder of the company Beyond Air.

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

The evidence is in: Less is more when it comes to treating uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in young children. Five days of antibiotic therapy resulted in a superior clinical response compared to 10 days of treatment and had the added benefit of a lower risk of inducing antibiotic resistance, according to the randomized, controlled SCOUT-CAP trial.

“Several studies have shown shorter antibiotic courses to be non-inferior to the standard treatment strategy, but in our study, we show that a shortened 5-day course of therapy was superior to standard therapy because the short course achieved similar outcomes with fewer days of antibiotics,” Derek Williams, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an email.

“These data are immediately applicable to frontline clinicians, and we hope this study will shift the paradigm towards more judicious treatment approaches for childhood pneumonia, resulting in care that is safer and more effective,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 18 in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Uncomplicated CAP

The study enrolled children aged 6 months to 71 months diagnosed with uncomplicated CAP who demonstrated early clinical improvement in response to 5 days of antibiotic treatment. Participants were prescribed either amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavulanate, or cefdinir according to standard of care and were randomized on day 6 to another 5 days of their initially prescribed antibiotic course or to placebo.

“Those assessed on day 6 were eligible only if they had not yet received a dose of antibiotic therapy on that day,” the authors write. The primary endpoint was end-of-treatment response, adjusted for the duration of antibiotic risk as assessed by RADAR. As the authors explain, RADAR is a composite endpoint that ranks each child’s clinical response, resolution of symptoms, and antibiotic-associated adverse effects (AEs) in an ordinal desirability of outcome ranking, or DOOR.

“There were no differences between strategies in the DOOR or in its individual components,” Dr. Williams and colleagues point out. A total of 380 children took part in the study. The mean age of participants was 35.7 months, and half were male.

Over 90% of children randomized to active therapy were prescribed amoxicillin. “Fewer than 10% of children in either strategy had an inadequate clinical response,” the authors report.

However, the 5-day antibiotic strategy had a 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) probability of children achieving a more desirable RADAR outcome compared with the standard, 10-day course, as assessed either on days 6 to 10 at outcome assessment visit one (OAV1) or at OAV2 on days 19 to 25.

There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of participants with persistent symptoms at either assessment point, they note. At assessment visit one, 40% of children assigned to the short-course strategy and 37% of children assigned to the 10-day strategy reported an antibiotic-related AE, most of which were mild.
 

Resistome analysis

Some 171 children were included in a resistome analysis in which throat swabs were collected between study days 19 and 25 to quantify antibiotic resistance genes in oropharyngeal flora. The total number of resistance genes per prokaryotic cell (RGPC) was significantly lower in children treated with antibiotics for 5 days compared with children who were treated for 10 days.

Specifically, the median number of total RGPC was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43) for the short-course strategy and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.46-11.08) for the standard-course strategy (P = .01). Similarly, the median number of β-lactamase RGPC was 0.55 (0.18-1.24) for the short-course strategy and 0.60 (0.21-2.45) for the standard-course strategy (P = .03).

“Providing the shortest duration of antibiotics necessary to effectively treat an infection is a central tenet of antimicrobial stewardship and a convenient and cost-effective strategy for caregivers,” the authors observe. For example, reducing treatment from 10 to 5 days for outpatient CAP could reduce the number of days spent on antibiotics by up to 7.5 million days in the U.S. each year.

“If we can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, we can minimize antibiotic side effects while also helping to slow antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Williams pointed out.

Fewer days of having to give their child repeated doses of antibiotics is also more convenient for families, he added.

Asked to comment on the study, David Greenberg, MD, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, explained that the length of antibiotic therapy as recommended by various guidelines is more or less arbitrary, some infections being excepted.

“There have been no studies evaluating the recommendation for a 100-day treatment course, and it’s kind of a joke because if you look at the treatment of just about any infection, it’s either for 7 days or 14 days or even 20 days because it’s easy to calculate – it’s not that anybody proved that treatment of whatever infection it is should last this long,” he told this news organization.

Moreover, adherence to a shorter antibiotic course is much better than it is to a longer course. If, for example, physicians tell a mother to take two bottles of antibiotics for a treatment course of 10 days, she’ll finish the first bottle which is good for 5 days and, because the child is fine, “she forgets about the second bottle,” Dr. Greenberg said.

In one of the first studies to compare a short versus long course of antibiotic therapy in uncomplicated CAP in young children, Dr. Greenberg and colleagues initially compared a 3-day course of high-dose amoxicillin to a 10-day course of the same treatment, but the 3-day course was associated with an unacceptable failure rate. (At the time, the World Health Organization was recommending a 3-day course of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated CAP in children.)

They stopped the study and then initiated a second study in which they compared a 5-day course of the same antibiotic to a 10-day course and found the 5-day course was comparable to the 10-day course in terms of clinical cure rates. As a result of his study, Dr. Greenberg has long since prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for his own patients.

“Five days is good,” he affirmed. “And if patients start a 10-day course of an antibiotic for, say, a urinary tract infection and a subsequent culture comes back negative, they don’t have to finish the antibiotics either.” Dr. Greenberg said.

Dr. Williams said he has no financial ties to industry. Dr. Greenberg said he has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. He is also a founder of the company Beyond Air.

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

The evidence is in: Less is more when it comes to treating uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in young children. Five days of antibiotic therapy resulted in a superior clinical response compared to 10 days of treatment and had the added benefit of a lower risk of inducing antibiotic resistance, according to the randomized, controlled SCOUT-CAP trial.

“Several studies have shown shorter antibiotic courses to be non-inferior to the standard treatment strategy, but in our study, we show that a shortened 5-day course of therapy was superior to standard therapy because the short course achieved similar outcomes with fewer days of antibiotics,” Derek Williams, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an email.

“These data are immediately applicable to frontline clinicians, and we hope this study will shift the paradigm towards more judicious treatment approaches for childhood pneumonia, resulting in care that is safer and more effective,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 18 in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Uncomplicated CAP

The study enrolled children aged 6 months to 71 months diagnosed with uncomplicated CAP who demonstrated early clinical improvement in response to 5 days of antibiotic treatment. Participants were prescribed either amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavulanate, or cefdinir according to standard of care and were randomized on day 6 to another 5 days of their initially prescribed antibiotic course or to placebo.

“Those assessed on day 6 were eligible only if they had not yet received a dose of antibiotic therapy on that day,” the authors write. The primary endpoint was end-of-treatment response, adjusted for the duration of antibiotic risk as assessed by RADAR. As the authors explain, RADAR is a composite endpoint that ranks each child’s clinical response, resolution of symptoms, and antibiotic-associated adverse effects (AEs) in an ordinal desirability of outcome ranking, or DOOR.

“There were no differences between strategies in the DOOR or in its individual components,” Dr. Williams and colleagues point out. A total of 380 children took part in the study. The mean age of participants was 35.7 months, and half were male.

Over 90% of children randomized to active therapy were prescribed amoxicillin. “Fewer than 10% of children in either strategy had an inadequate clinical response,” the authors report.

However, the 5-day antibiotic strategy had a 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) probability of children achieving a more desirable RADAR outcome compared with the standard, 10-day course, as assessed either on days 6 to 10 at outcome assessment visit one (OAV1) or at OAV2 on days 19 to 25.

There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of participants with persistent symptoms at either assessment point, they note. At assessment visit one, 40% of children assigned to the short-course strategy and 37% of children assigned to the 10-day strategy reported an antibiotic-related AE, most of which were mild.
 

Resistome analysis

Some 171 children were included in a resistome analysis in which throat swabs were collected between study days 19 and 25 to quantify antibiotic resistance genes in oropharyngeal flora. The total number of resistance genes per prokaryotic cell (RGPC) was significantly lower in children treated with antibiotics for 5 days compared with children who were treated for 10 days.

Specifically, the median number of total RGPC was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43) for the short-course strategy and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.46-11.08) for the standard-course strategy (P = .01). Similarly, the median number of β-lactamase RGPC was 0.55 (0.18-1.24) for the short-course strategy and 0.60 (0.21-2.45) for the standard-course strategy (P = .03).

“Providing the shortest duration of antibiotics necessary to effectively treat an infection is a central tenet of antimicrobial stewardship and a convenient and cost-effective strategy for caregivers,” the authors observe. For example, reducing treatment from 10 to 5 days for outpatient CAP could reduce the number of days spent on antibiotics by up to 7.5 million days in the U.S. each year.

“If we can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, we can minimize antibiotic side effects while also helping to slow antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Williams pointed out.

Fewer days of having to give their child repeated doses of antibiotics is also more convenient for families, he added.

Asked to comment on the study, David Greenberg, MD, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, explained that the length of antibiotic therapy as recommended by various guidelines is more or less arbitrary, some infections being excepted.

“There have been no studies evaluating the recommendation for a 100-day treatment course, and it’s kind of a joke because if you look at the treatment of just about any infection, it’s either for 7 days or 14 days or even 20 days because it’s easy to calculate – it’s not that anybody proved that treatment of whatever infection it is should last this long,” he told this news organization.

Moreover, adherence to a shorter antibiotic course is much better than it is to a longer course. If, for example, physicians tell a mother to take two bottles of antibiotics for a treatment course of 10 days, she’ll finish the first bottle which is good for 5 days and, because the child is fine, “she forgets about the second bottle,” Dr. Greenberg said.

In one of the first studies to compare a short versus long course of antibiotic therapy in uncomplicated CAP in young children, Dr. Greenberg and colleagues initially compared a 3-day course of high-dose amoxicillin to a 10-day course of the same treatment, but the 3-day course was associated with an unacceptable failure rate. (At the time, the World Health Organization was recommending a 3-day course of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated CAP in children.)

They stopped the study and then initiated a second study in which they compared a 5-day course of the same antibiotic to a 10-day course and found the 5-day course was comparable to the 10-day course in terms of clinical cure rates. As a result of his study, Dr. Greenberg has long since prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for his own patients.

“Five days is good,” he affirmed. “And if patients start a 10-day course of an antibiotic for, say, a urinary tract infection and a subsequent culture comes back negative, they don’t have to finish the antibiotics either.” Dr. Greenberg said.

Dr. Williams said he has no financial ties to industry. Dr. Greenberg said he has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. He is also a founder of the company Beyond Air.

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

Antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care decreased dramatically when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and new research indicates that drop was sustained through June of 2021.

Lauren Dutcher, MD, with the division of infectious diseases at Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, led a study of 27 pediatric primary care practices in the United States. Encounters from Jan. 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included.

Researchers found a 72.7% drop in antibiotic prescriptions when they compared prepandemic April 2019 through December 2019 with the same period in 2020.

Prescriptions remained at the lower levels, primarily driven by reductions in respiratory tract infection (RTI) encounters, and began to rise only in April of 2021, the authors write.

Findings were published online Jan. 11 in Pediatrics.

Researchers report there were 69,327 antibiotic prescriptions from April through December in 2019 and 18,935 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020.

“The reduction in prescriptions at visits for respiratory tract infection (RTI) accounted for 87.3% of this decrease,” the authors write.

Both prescribing and acute non–COVID-19 respiratory tract infection diagnoses decreased.

Researchers conclude reductions in viral RTI transmission likely played a large role in reduced RTI pediatric visits and antibiotic prescriptions.

Dr. Dutcher told this publication the reduction was likely caused by a combination of less viral transmission of respiratory infections, helped in part by masking and distancing, but also avoidance of health care in the pandemic.

She said the data reinforce the need for appropriate prescribing.

“Antibiotic prescribing is really heavily driven by respiratory infections so this should continue to clue providers in on how frequently that can be unnecessary,“ she said.

Dr. Dutcher said there was probably a reduction in secondary bacterial infections as well as the viral infections.

The research is more comprehensive than some other previous studies, the authors write.

“Although other studies demonstrated early reductions in RTIs and antibiotic prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic, to our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a sustained decrease in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care throughout 2020 and early 2021,” they write.

The findings also suggest benefits of preventive measures during the pandemic, the authors say.

“Our data suggest that reducing community viral RTI transmission through social distancing and masking corresponds with a reduction in antibiotic prescribing,” they write.

Kao-Ping Chua, MD, a pediatrician and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said the reductions indicate one of two things is happening: either children aren’t getting sick as often during the pandemic or they are getting sick, but not coming in.

University of Michigan

This article was updated 1/11/22.

Antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care decreased dramatically when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and new research indicates that drop was sustained through June of 2021.

Lauren Dutcher, MD, with the division of infectious diseases at Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, led a study of 27 pediatric primary care practices in the United States. Encounters from Jan. 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included.

Researchers found a 72.7% drop in antibiotic prescriptions when they compared prepandemic April 2019 through December 2019 with the same period in 2020.

Prescriptions remained at the lower levels, primarily driven by reductions in respiratory tract infection (RTI) encounters, and began to rise only in April of 2021, the authors write.

Findings were published online Jan. 11 in Pediatrics.

Researchers report there were 69,327 antibiotic prescriptions from April through December in 2019 and 18,935 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020.

“The reduction in prescriptions at visits for respiratory tract infection (RTI) accounted for 87.3% of this decrease,” the authors write.

Both prescribing and acute non–COVID-19 respiratory tract infection diagnoses decreased.

Researchers conclude reductions in viral RTI transmission likely played a large role in reduced RTI pediatric visits and antibiotic prescriptions.

Dr. Dutcher told this publication the reduction was likely caused by a combination of less viral transmission of respiratory infections, helped in part by masking and distancing, but also avoidance of health care in the pandemic.

She said the data reinforce the need for appropriate prescribing.

“Antibiotic prescribing is really heavily driven by respiratory infections so this should continue to clue providers in on how frequently that can be unnecessary,“ she said.

Dr. Dutcher said there was probably a reduction in secondary bacterial infections as well as the viral infections.

The research is more comprehensive than some other previous studies, the authors write.

“Although other studies demonstrated early reductions in RTIs and antibiotic prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic, to our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a sustained decrease in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care throughout 2020 and early 2021,” they write.

The findings also suggest benefits of preventive measures during the pandemic, the authors say.

“Our data suggest that reducing community viral RTI transmission through social distancing and masking corresponds with a reduction in antibiotic prescribing,” they write.

Kao-Ping Chua, MD, a pediatrician and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said the reductions indicate one of two things is happening: either children aren’t getting sick as often during the pandemic or they are getting sick, but not coming in.

University of Michigan

This article was updated 1/11/22.

Antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care decreased dramatically when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and new research indicates that drop was sustained through June of 2021.

Lauren Dutcher, MD, with the division of infectious diseases at Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, led a study of 27 pediatric primary care practices in the United States. Encounters from Jan. 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021, were included.

Researchers found a 72.7% drop in antibiotic prescriptions when they compared prepandemic April 2019 through December 2019 with the same period in 2020.

Prescriptions remained at the lower levels, primarily driven by reductions in respiratory tract infection (RTI) encounters, and began to rise only in April of 2021, the authors write.

Findings were published online Jan. 11 in Pediatrics.

Researchers report there were 69,327 antibiotic prescriptions from April through December in 2019 and 18,935 antibiotic prescriptions during the same months in 2020.

“The reduction in prescriptions at visits for respiratory tract infection (RTI) accounted for 87.3% of this decrease,” the authors write.

Both prescribing and acute non–COVID-19 respiratory tract infection diagnoses decreased.

Researchers conclude reductions in viral RTI transmission likely played a large role in reduced RTI pediatric visits and antibiotic prescriptions.

Dr. Dutcher told this publication the reduction was likely caused by a combination of less viral transmission of respiratory infections, helped in part by masking and distancing, but also avoidance of health care in the pandemic.

She said the data reinforce the need for appropriate prescribing.

“Antibiotic prescribing is really heavily driven by respiratory infections so this should continue to clue providers in on how frequently that can be unnecessary,“ she said.

Dr. Dutcher said there was probably a reduction in secondary bacterial infections as well as the viral infections.

The research is more comprehensive than some other previous studies, the authors write.

“Although other studies demonstrated early reductions in RTIs and antibiotic prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic, to our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a sustained decrease in antibiotic prescribing in pediatric primary care throughout 2020 and early 2021,” they write.

The findings also suggest benefits of preventive measures during the pandemic, the authors say.

“Our data suggest that reducing community viral RTI transmission through social distancing and masking corresponds with a reduction in antibiotic prescribing,” they write.

Kao-Ping Chua, MD, a pediatrician and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said the reductions indicate one of two things is happening: either children aren’t getting sick as often during the pandemic or they are getting sick, but not coming in.

University of Michigan

This article was updated 1/11/22.

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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