MDedge Infectious Disease

Not that long ago, a man in his mid-20s whom Morgan Farrington calls Kiddo showed up at her house with a fever, chills, and nausea. He was increasingly out of it. These were all signs of an abscess from missing a vein and using someone else’s syringe, said Farrington, founder of Goodworks, in Huntsville, Alabama.

But it wasn’t just an abscess. It was four blood clots and sepsis. He’d been craving his next fix of heroin so hard, and the relief that comes from the act of shooting up itself, that he’d dug a 3-day-old blood shot – a used syringe with someone else’s blood in it – out of the garbage and had used it.

“He was almost dead,” said Farrington. “Another day, maybe two, he would have been dead, for sure, for sure.”

Farrington gets it. She has her own history of injection drug use. She knows the compulsion to, in her words, “shoot up sugar water just to get a hit.” And that’s fine, she said. “I just wish that he would do so with his own safety in mind.”

So when he got out of the hospital a few weeks later, Farrington talked to him about not just clean syringes but also HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the daily HIV prevention pills that have been found to be up to 84% protective against HIV in people who inject drugs. Both approaches – syringe services and PrEP – play a key role in the president’s new National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The strategy calls for expanding access to both services in traditional and nontraditional settings but doesn’t include mechanisms for that to happen.

Of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% are using it. But according to data published in 2020, just 0% and 5% of people who inject drugs who could benefit are using it. And most, like the guy Farrington continues to talk to, don’t even know it exists.
 

People who inject drugs are willing, clinicians may not be

Clinicians have a role to play, but right now, many clinicians act as gatekeepers, picking and choosing whom they’ll offer PrEP to. In 2014, just 1% of PrEP prescribers said they had prescribed the prevention pill to people who inject drugs. And recent data published in AIDS and Behavior showed that clinicians who expressed negative attitudes about people who injected drugs were less likely to offer to prescribe PrEP to a theoretical man who injected drugs asking for PrEP. There was a paradox in there, however: Clinicians were also more likely to think men who inject drugs were at high risk for acquiring HIV. But they also believed those men would be less likely to adhere, less safety conscious, and less responsible than gay and bisexual men. So, the investigators found that despite need, clinicians were more likely to prescribe to men at risk via sex than men at risk via injection drug use.

According to the CDC, to qualify for PrEP, the only requirements for people who inject drugs are testing negative for HIV and not sharing injection equipment – whether their injecting partners have confirmed HIV or whether their HIV status is unknown.

“As long as PrEP is a prescription, medication providers are really going to determine who accesses PrEP and who does not,” said study lead author Sarah Calabrese, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. “Even if you do anticipate that a patient might have adherence struggles. The solution is not withholding something that could be beneficial to them. The solution is supporting them to take that beneficial medication.”

And it appears that providers and regular people like Farrington have stepped into the access vacuum, with a decidedly harm-reduction approach: syringe services programs. While there’s no national data on how many people receive PrEP through needle exchange programs, those programs are the natural place to offer other health care services, said Hansel Tookes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and founder of the Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) Syringe Exchange program and clinic. At the clinic, 80% of the people living with HIV have undetectable viral loads – a sign of good adherence to medication and general health. Previous research suggests that when people who inject drugs find out about PrEP, 57% are game for trying it. But early work suggests that people who inject drugs might need to access PrEP in a different way from other people who use PrEP.

Dr. Tookes is currently conducting a study looking at whether referring people who inject drugs out from needle exchanges to PrEP prescribers is as effective as offering it on site at the exchanges.

“My experience in the past 5 years of being faculty at the university and being a cofounder of a program like IDEA is that we really, if we’re going to be successful with engaging people who inject drugs in things like PrEP, we have to, like all things harm reduction, meet them where they’re at, both physically and mentally, and on their own terms,” said Dr. Tookes. “What better place than a syringe services program?”
 

Where people are: the exchanges

That’s where community health worker Farrington and others come in. More than 400 syringe access programs that exist in North America have PrEP programs, according to the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), and 86 of them report offering access to PrEP, either directly or through referrals. It’s an HIV prevention one-two punch: PrEP protects a person once they are exposed to HIV, and needle exchanges themselves reduce HIV transmission rates by reducing the odds that people will engage in behavior that exposes them to the virus in the first place.

So far, PrEP access for people who inject drugs looks different everywhere. At Las Vegas’ Huntridge Family Clinic, people can come to the lobby and pick up clean supplies from a syringe exchange vending machine, and while they’re there, talk to nurse practitioner Rob Phoenix, MSN, APRN, about HIV prevention.

In Cincinnati, where Adam Reilly, CDCA, runs a Ryan White–funded PrEP program out of the nonprofit Caracole, PrEP navigators go out with the syringe services vans run by the county health department and can connect them with providers willing to prescribe it. In Alabama, where needle exchanges are illegal, Farrington works as a community health worker through the North Alabama Area Health Education Center to go in to Huntsville’s legal tent cities to offer HIV and hepatitis C testing and tell them about PrEP. In Philadelphia, Drexel University, the city Department of Health, and Prevention Point Philadelphia co-offer PrEP through Prevention Point, which increased the number of people who inject drugs taking PrEP from just two to three a year to 584 times in 2021, according to Andres Freire, director of harm reduction health services at Prevention Point Philadelphia.

“Co-locating a PrEP clinic with our syringe-services program is the most effective means of delivering care to people who use drugs,” he said. “It is a friendly, nonstigmatizing place, as well as a place where individuals are already coming for services.”

At Dr. Tookes’ IDEA clinic and its PrEP study, people who inject drugs can not only get clean supplies, they can get a PrEP prescription on site and store their medications at the exchange so they don’t get stolen or used by others. And that idea didn’t come from him.

“It was one of my patients,” he said. “That person gave me an idea that impacted the health of hundreds of people in Miami.”

Indeed, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program does the same. New data showed that what really worked for people who injected drugs in the group was not just medication storage on site but also PrEP prescriptions that lasted just a week at a time, or even same-day prescribing, as well as the program’s PrEP nurses showing up in person to their communities. That program managed to get PrEP referrals to 239 people, 152 of whom started taking PrEP. Six months later, 22 people were still using it.

But Dr. Tookes’s is a rare study on PrEP among people who inject drugs. The only data so far on the efficacy of PrEP for this group come from a 2013 study out of Thailand. Angela Bazzi, PhD, an associate professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, who studied the Boston program, said the dearth of research into effective ways of getting PrEP to people who inject drugs is fueling a negative feedback loop, where people who inject drugs and their providers largely don’t know about the HIV prevention pills, don’t see research on it, and therefore think it won’t work in people who inject drugs.

“There’s been a systematic exclusion of people who inject drugs from HIV prevention drug trials,” Dr. Bazzi told this news organization. Together with colleagues she wrote a viewpoint on the issue that was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “It really extends into effectiveness research, public health research, and clinical practice. We argued that the stigma surrounding addiction is the key driver of this.”

This is especially important, she said, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been expected to make an approval decision on an injectable form of PrEP by Jan. 2021. That drug, cabotegravir, has been found to work for a month at a time. Injection drug users were excluded from the primary clinical trial of that drug, though a ViiV Healthcare spokesperson said the company is planning an after-market study in people who inject drugs some time in the future.
 

An incomplete solution

But syringe services aren’t enough, said Mr. Reilly. For one thing, public funding of PrEP programs can limit things like where navigators can send people. For instance, in Ohio, Mr. Reilly’s team can cover the costs of PrEP for people who inject drugs – but only with certain providers. State law prohibits them from contracting with Planned Parenthood.

Also, syringe services aren’t available everywhere. In Pennsylvania, where syringe services are legal only in the counties containing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the state’s two large cities, funding for basic syringe services precludes expanding services to offer PrEP.

“A lot of our focus has to stay with making sure our folks have access to the harm-reduction supplies they need, because the number of people we are seeing has grown exponentially during the pandemic,” said Katie Houston, a coordinator for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which tries to address its clients’s PrEP needs by holding syringe-services distribution at a local clinic that provides PrEP. “Getting funding for our core supplies like syringes, crack pipes, and the works is extremely difficult because many grants/foundations don’t want to fund these supplies. And with the growing number of SSPs, the funding that has been available is being spread thin.”

And that means that traditional clinicians still have an important role to play, said Mr. Reilly.

“Syringe services programs are supposed to now provide treatment for hepatitis C and make sure people get on PrEP?” he said. “That seems like medical providers’s job.”

As for Farrington, operating as a solo health worker without the benefit of exchanges to help people like the young man who came to her house that night, she’ll keep going in to tent city and inviting sick people who inject drugs into her home to offer them what she can. She can’t legally offer syringe services. But she can keep checking in on people and offering them the help that’s available.

Recently, she saw that young man again. He was in a better place. He had found a place to live for the winter, so he wouldn’t have to stay in the hammock in someone’s yard when the temperatures dipped. And that was going a long way to stabilize everything else in his life. He’s still shooting up, she said, but having housing is making it easier for him to moderate his use. As for PrEP, he hasn’t started on that, either. But Farrington hasn’t given up hope.

“Not yet,” she said.

Dr. Tookes reports receiving research funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Calabrese reports receiving conference travel funding from Gilead Sciences. Farrington, Dr. Bazzi, Ms. Houston, Mr. Freire, and Mr. Reilly reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Not that long ago, a man in his mid-20s whom Morgan Farrington calls Kiddo showed up at her house with a fever, chills, and nausea. He was increasingly out of it. These were all signs of an abscess from missing a vein and using someone else’s syringe, said Farrington, founder of Goodworks, in Huntsville, Alabama.

But it wasn’t just an abscess. It was four blood clots and sepsis. He’d been craving his next fix of heroin so hard, and the relief that comes from the act of shooting up itself, that he’d dug a 3-day-old blood shot – a used syringe with someone else’s blood in it – out of the garbage and had used it.

“He was almost dead,” said Farrington. “Another day, maybe two, he would have been dead, for sure, for sure.”

Farrington gets it. She has her own history of injection drug use. She knows the compulsion to, in her words, “shoot up sugar water just to get a hit.” And that’s fine, she said. “I just wish that he would do so with his own safety in mind.”

So when he got out of the hospital a few weeks later, Farrington talked to him about not just clean syringes but also HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the daily HIV prevention pills that have been found to be up to 84% protective against HIV in people who inject drugs. Both approaches – syringe services and PrEP – play a key role in the president’s new National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The strategy calls for expanding access to both services in traditional and nontraditional settings but doesn’t include mechanisms for that to happen.

Of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% are using it. But according to data published in 2020, just 0% and 5% of people who inject drugs who could benefit are using it. And most, like the guy Farrington continues to talk to, don’t even know it exists.
 

People who inject drugs are willing, clinicians may not be

Clinicians have a role to play, but right now, many clinicians act as gatekeepers, picking and choosing whom they’ll offer PrEP to. In 2014, just 1% of PrEP prescribers said they had prescribed the prevention pill to people who inject drugs. And recent data published in AIDS and Behavior showed that clinicians who expressed negative attitudes about people who injected drugs were less likely to offer to prescribe PrEP to a theoretical man who injected drugs asking for PrEP. There was a paradox in there, however: Clinicians were also more likely to think men who inject drugs were at high risk for acquiring HIV. But they also believed those men would be less likely to adhere, less safety conscious, and less responsible than gay and bisexual men. So, the investigators found that despite need, clinicians were more likely to prescribe to men at risk via sex than men at risk via injection drug use.

According to the CDC, to qualify for PrEP, the only requirements for people who inject drugs are testing negative for HIV and not sharing injection equipment – whether their injecting partners have confirmed HIV or whether their HIV status is unknown.

“As long as PrEP is a prescription, medication providers are really going to determine who accesses PrEP and who does not,” said study lead author Sarah Calabrese, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. “Even if you do anticipate that a patient might have adherence struggles. The solution is not withholding something that could be beneficial to them. The solution is supporting them to take that beneficial medication.”

And it appears that providers and regular people like Farrington have stepped into the access vacuum, with a decidedly harm-reduction approach: syringe services programs. While there’s no national data on how many people receive PrEP through needle exchange programs, those programs are the natural place to offer other health care services, said Hansel Tookes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and founder of the Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) Syringe Exchange program and clinic. At the clinic, 80% of the people living with HIV have undetectable viral loads – a sign of good adherence to medication and general health. Previous research suggests that when people who inject drugs find out about PrEP, 57% are game for trying it. But early work suggests that people who inject drugs might need to access PrEP in a different way from other people who use PrEP.

Dr. Tookes is currently conducting a study looking at whether referring people who inject drugs out from needle exchanges to PrEP prescribers is as effective as offering it on site at the exchanges.

“My experience in the past 5 years of being faculty at the university and being a cofounder of a program like IDEA is that we really, if we’re going to be successful with engaging people who inject drugs in things like PrEP, we have to, like all things harm reduction, meet them where they’re at, both physically and mentally, and on their own terms,” said Dr. Tookes. “What better place than a syringe services program?”
 

Where people are: the exchanges

That’s where community health worker Farrington and others come in. More than 400 syringe access programs that exist in North America have PrEP programs, according to the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), and 86 of them report offering access to PrEP, either directly or through referrals. It’s an HIV prevention one-two punch: PrEP protects a person once they are exposed to HIV, and needle exchanges themselves reduce HIV transmission rates by reducing the odds that people will engage in behavior that exposes them to the virus in the first place.

So far, PrEP access for people who inject drugs looks different everywhere. At Las Vegas’ Huntridge Family Clinic, people can come to the lobby and pick up clean supplies from a syringe exchange vending machine, and while they’re there, talk to nurse practitioner Rob Phoenix, MSN, APRN, about HIV prevention.

In Cincinnati, where Adam Reilly, CDCA, runs a Ryan White–funded PrEP program out of the nonprofit Caracole, PrEP navigators go out with the syringe services vans run by the county health department and can connect them with providers willing to prescribe it. In Alabama, where needle exchanges are illegal, Farrington works as a community health worker through the North Alabama Area Health Education Center to go in to Huntsville’s legal tent cities to offer HIV and hepatitis C testing and tell them about PrEP. In Philadelphia, Drexel University, the city Department of Health, and Prevention Point Philadelphia co-offer PrEP through Prevention Point, which increased the number of people who inject drugs taking PrEP from just two to three a year to 584 times in 2021, according to Andres Freire, director of harm reduction health services at Prevention Point Philadelphia.

“Co-locating a PrEP clinic with our syringe-services program is the most effective means of delivering care to people who use drugs,” he said. “It is a friendly, nonstigmatizing place, as well as a place where individuals are already coming for services.”

At Dr. Tookes’ IDEA clinic and its PrEP study, people who inject drugs can not only get clean supplies, they can get a PrEP prescription on site and store their medications at the exchange so they don’t get stolen or used by others. And that idea didn’t come from him.

“It was one of my patients,” he said. “That person gave me an idea that impacted the health of hundreds of people in Miami.”

Indeed, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program does the same. New data showed that what really worked for people who injected drugs in the group was not just medication storage on site but also PrEP prescriptions that lasted just a week at a time, or even same-day prescribing, as well as the program’s PrEP nurses showing up in person to their communities. That program managed to get PrEP referrals to 239 people, 152 of whom started taking PrEP. Six months later, 22 people were still using it.

But Dr. Tookes’s is a rare study on PrEP among people who inject drugs. The only data so far on the efficacy of PrEP for this group come from a 2013 study out of Thailand. Angela Bazzi, PhD, an associate professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, who studied the Boston program, said the dearth of research into effective ways of getting PrEP to people who inject drugs is fueling a negative feedback loop, where people who inject drugs and their providers largely don’t know about the HIV prevention pills, don’t see research on it, and therefore think it won’t work in people who inject drugs.

“There’s been a systematic exclusion of people who inject drugs from HIV prevention drug trials,” Dr. Bazzi told this news organization. Together with colleagues she wrote a viewpoint on the issue that was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “It really extends into effectiveness research, public health research, and clinical practice. We argued that the stigma surrounding addiction is the key driver of this.”

This is especially important, she said, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been expected to make an approval decision on an injectable form of PrEP by Jan. 2021. That drug, cabotegravir, has been found to work for a month at a time. Injection drug users were excluded from the primary clinical trial of that drug, though a ViiV Healthcare spokesperson said the company is planning an after-market study in people who inject drugs some time in the future.
 

An incomplete solution

But syringe services aren’t enough, said Mr. Reilly. For one thing, public funding of PrEP programs can limit things like where navigators can send people. For instance, in Ohio, Mr. Reilly’s team can cover the costs of PrEP for people who inject drugs – but only with certain providers. State law prohibits them from contracting with Planned Parenthood.

Also, syringe services aren’t available everywhere. In Pennsylvania, where syringe services are legal only in the counties containing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the state’s two large cities, funding for basic syringe services precludes expanding services to offer PrEP.

“A lot of our focus has to stay with making sure our folks have access to the harm-reduction supplies they need, because the number of people we are seeing has grown exponentially during the pandemic,” said Katie Houston, a coordinator for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which tries to address its clients’s PrEP needs by holding syringe-services distribution at a local clinic that provides PrEP. “Getting funding for our core supplies like syringes, crack pipes, and the works is extremely difficult because many grants/foundations don’t want to fund these supplies. And with the growing number of SSPs, the funding that has been available is being spread thin.”

And that means that traditional clinicians still have an important role to play, said Mr. Reilly.

“Syringe services programs are supposed to now provide treatment for hepatitis C and make sure people get on PrEP?” he said. “That seems like medical providers’s job.”

As for Farrington, operating as a solo health worker without the benefit of exchanges to help people like the young man who came to her house that night, she’ll keep going in to tent city and inviting sick people who inject drugs into her home to offer them what she can. She can’t legally offer syringe services. But she can keep checking in on people and offering them the help that’s available.

Recently, she saw that young man again. He was in a better place. He had found a place to live for the winter, so he wouldn’t have to stay in the hammock in someone’s yard when the temperatures dipped. And that was going a long way to stabilize everything else in his life. He’s still shooting up, she said, but having housing is making it easier for him to moderate his use. As for PrEP, he hasn’t started on that, either. But Farrington hasn’t given up hope.

“Not yet,” she said.

Dr. Tookes reports receiving research funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Calabrese reports receiving conference travel funding from Gilead Sciences. Farrington, Dr. Bazzi, Ms. Houston, Mr. Freire, and Mr. Reilly reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Not that long ago, a man in his mid-20s whom Morgan Farrington calls Kiddo showed up at her house with a fever, chills, and nausea. He was increasingly out of it. These were all signs of an abscess from missing a vein and using someone else’s syringe, said Farrington, founder of Goodworks, in Huntsville, Alabama.

But it wasn’t just an abscess. It was four blood clots and sepsis. He’d been craving his next fix of heroin so hard, and the relief that comes from the act of shooting up itself, that he’d dug a 3-day-old blood shot – a used syringe with someone else’s blood in it – out of the garbage and had used it.

“He was almost dead,” said Farrington. “Another day, maybe two, he would have been dead, for sure, for sure.”

Farrington gets it. She has her own history of injection drug use. She knows the compulsion to, in her words, “shoot up sugar water just to get a hit.” And that’s fine, she said. “I just wish that he would do so with his own safety in mind.”

So when he got out of the hospital a few weeks later, Farrington talked to him about not just clean syringes but also HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the daily HIV prevention pills that have been found to be up to 84% protective against HIV in people who inject drugs. Both approaches – syringe services and PrEP – play a key role in the president’s new National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The strategy calls for expanding access to both services in traditional and nontraditional settings but doesn’t include mechanisms for that to happen.

Of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. who could benefit from PrEP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23% are using it. But according to data published in 2020, just 0% and 5% of people who inject drugs who could benefit are using it. And most, like the guy Farrington continues to talk to, don’t even know it exists.
 

People who inject drugs are willing, clinicians may not be

Clinicians have a role to play, but right now, many clinicians act as gatekeepers, picking and choosing whom they’ll offer PrEP to. In 2014, just 1% of PrEP prescribers said they had prescribed the prevention pill to people who inject drugs. And recent data published in AIDS and Behavior showed that clinicians who expressed negative attitudes about people who injected drugs were less likely to offer to prescribe PrEP to a theoretical man who injected drugs asking for PrEP. There was a paradox in there, however: Clinicians were also more likely to think men who inject drugs were at high risk for acquiring HIV. But they also believed those men would be less likely to adhere, less safety conscious, and less responsible than gay and bisexual men. So, the investigators found that despite need, clinicians were more likely to prescribe to men at risk via sex than men at risk via injection drug use.

According to the CDC, to qualify for PrEP, the only requirements for people who inject drugs are testing negative for HIV and not sharing injection equipment – whether their injecting partners have confirmed HIV or whether their HIV status is unknown.

“As long as PrEP is a prescription, medication providers are really going to determine who accesses PrEP and who does not,” said study lead author Sarah Calabrese, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University. “Even if you do anticipate that a patient might have adherence struggles. The solution is not withholding something that could be beneficial to them. The solution is supporting them to take that beneficial medication.”

And it appears that providers and regular people like Farrington have stepped into the access vacuum, with a decidedly harm-reduction approach: syringe services programs. While there’s no national data on how many people receive PrEP through needle exchange programs, those programs are the natural place to offer other health care services, said Hansel Tookes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Miami and founder of the Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) Syringe Exchange program and clinic. At the clinic, 80% of the people living with HIV have undetectable viral loads – a sign of good adherence to medication and general health. Previous research suggests that when people who inject drugs find out about PrEP, 57% are game for trying it. But early work suggests that people who inject drugs might need to access PrEP in a different way from other people who use PrEP.

Dr. Tookes is currently conducting a study looking at whether referring people who inject drugs out from needle exchanges to PrEP prescribers is as effective as offering it on site at the exchanges.

“My experience in the past 5 years of being faculty at the university and being a cofounder of a program like IDEA is that we really, if we’re going to be successful with engaging people who inject drugs in things like PrEP, we have to, like all things harm reduction, meet them where they’re at, both physically and mentally, and on their own terms,” said Dr. Tookes. “What better place than a syringe services program?”
 

Where people are: the exchanges

That’s where community health worker Farrington and others come in. More than 400 syringe access programs that exist in North America have PrEP programs, according to the North American Syringe Exchange Network (NASEN), and 86 of them report offering access to PrEP, either directly or through referrals. It’s an HIV prevention one-two punch: PrEP protects a person once they are exposed to HIV, and needle exchanges themselves reduce HIV transmission rates by reducing the odds that people will engage in behavior that exposes them to the virus in the first place.

So far, PrEP access for people who inject drugs looks different everywhere. At Las Vegas’ Huntridge Family Clinic, people can come to the lobby and pick up clean supplies from a syringe exchange vending machine, and while they’re there, talk to nurse practitioner Rob Phoenix, MSN, APRN, about HIV prevention.

In Cincinnati, where Adam Reilly, CDCA, runs a Ryan White–funded PrEP program out of the nonprofit Caracole, PrEP navigators go out with the syringe services vans run by the county health department and can connect them with providers willing to prescribe it. In Alabama, where needle exchanges are illegal, Farrington works as a community health worker through the North Alabama Area Health Education Center to go in to Huntsville’s legal tent cities to offer HIV and hepatitis C testing and tell them about PrEP. In Philadelphia, Drexel University, the city Department of Health, and Prevention Point Philadelphia co-offer PrEP through Prevention Point, which increased the number of people who inject drugs taking PrEP from just two to three a year to 584 times in 2021, according to Andres Freire, director of harm reduction health services at Prevention Point Philadelphia.

“Co-locating a PrEP clinic with our syringe-services program is the most effective means of delivering care to people who use drugs,” he said. “It is a friendly, nonstigmatizing place, as well as a place where individuals are already coming for services.”

At Dr. Tookes’ IDEA clinic and its PrEP study, people who inject drugs can not only get clean supplies, they can get a PrEP prescription on site and store their medications at the exchange so they don’t get stolen or used by others. And that idea didn’t come from him.

“It was one of my patients,” he said. “That person gave me an idea that impacted the health of hundreds of people in Miami.”

Indeed, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program does the same. New data showed that what really worked for people who injected drugs in the group was not just medication storage on site but also PrEP prescriptions that lasted just a week at a time, or even same-day prescribing, as well as the program’s PrEP nurses showing up in person to their communities. That program managed to get PrEP referrals to 239 people, 152 of whom started taking PrEP. Six months later, 22 people were still using it.

But Dr. Tookes’s is a rare study on PrEP among people who inject drugs. The only data so far on the efficacy of PrEP for this group come from a 2013 study out of Thailand. Angela Bazzi, PhD, an associate professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California, San Diego, who studied the Boston program, said the dearth of research into effective ways of getting PrEP to people who inject drugs is fueling a negative feedback loop, where people who inject drugs and their providers largely don’t know about the HIV prevention pills, don’t see research on it, and therefore think it won’t work in people who inject drugs.

“There’s been a systematic exclusion of people who inject drugs from HIV prevention drug trials,” Dr. Bazzi told this news organization. Together with colleagues she wrote a viewpoint on the issue that was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. “It really extends into effectiveness research, public health research, and clinical practice. We argued that the stigma surrounding addiction is the key driver of this.”

This is especially important, she said, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had been expected to make an approval decision on an injectable form of PrEP by Jan. 2021. That drug, cabotegravir, has been found to work for a month at a time. Injection drug users were excluded from the primary clinical trial of that drug, though a ViiV Healthcare spokesperson said the company is planning an after-market study in people who inject drugs some time in the future.
 

An incomplete solution

But syringe services aren’t enough, said Mr. Reilly. For one thing, public funding of PrEP programs can limit things like where navigators can send people. For instance, in Ohio, Mr. Reilly’s team can cover the costs of PrEP for people who inject drugs – but only with certain providers. State law prohibits them from contracting with Planned Parenthood.

Also, syringe services aren’t available everywhere. In Pennsylvania, where syringe services are legal only in the counties containing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the state’s two large cities, funding for basic syringe services precludes expanding services to offer PrEP.

“A lot of our focus has to stay with making sure our folks have access to the harm-reduction supplies they need, because the number of people we are seeing has grown exponentially during the pandemic,” said Katie Houston, a coordinator for Prevention Point Pittsburgh, which tries to address its clients’s PrEP needs by holding syringe-services distribution at a local clinic that provides PrEP. “Getting funding for our core supplies like syringes, crack pipes, and the works is extremely difficult because many grants/foundations don’t want to fund these supplies. And with the growing number of SSPs, the funding that has been available is being spread thin.”

And that means that traditional clinicians still have an important role to play, said Mr. Reilly.

“Syringe services programs are supposed to now provide treatment for hepatitis C and make sure people get on PrEP?” he said. “That seems like medical providers’s job.”

As for Farrington, operating as a solo health worker without the benefit of exchanges to help people like the young man who came to her house that night, she’ll keep going in to tent city and inviting sick people who inject drugs into her home to offer them what she can. She can’t legally offer syringe services. But she can keep checking in on people and offering them the help that’s available.

Recently, she saw that young man again. He was in a better place. He had found a place to live for the winter, so he wouldn’t have to stay in the hammock in someone’s yard when the temperatures dipped. And that was going a long way to stabilize everything else in his life. He’s still shooting up, she said, but having housing is making it easier for him to moderate his use. As for PrEP, he hasn’t started on that, either. But Farrington hasn’t given up hope.

“Not yet,” she said.

Dr. Tookes reports receiving research funding from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Calabrese reports receiving conference travel funding from Gilead Sciences. Farrington, Dr. Bazzi, Ms. Houston, Mr. Freire, and Mr. Reilly reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens, according to results from the KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya.

The findings, published on the preprint server Research Square and presented Nov. 17 at the 34th International Papillomavirus Conference in Toronto, bring “renewed energy to the push to make cervical cancer the first cancer to be wiped out globally,” according to co–principal investigator Ruanne V. Barnabas, PhD, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Decision-makers will consider these findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other evidence to determine if dosing-schedule changes are warranted, she told this news organization.

In a press release, Samuel Kariuki, PhD, acting director general, Kenya Medical Research Institute, who was not involved in the research, called the findings a “game changer” that could “substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-attributable cervical cancer.”

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Barnabas and her colleagues enrolled 2,275 sexually active, HPV-vaccine–naive women in Kenya in their study. The women, 15-20 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive a bivalent vaccine (HPV 16/18), a nonavalent vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11), or a vaccine against meningococcal meningitis.

Most participants (57%) were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 61% reported one lifetime sexual partner. The women underwent genital and cervical swabs at enrollment to test for HPV DNA and had blood drawn to test for antibodies. During 18 months of follow-up, they had cervical swabs every 6 months and a vaginal swab at 3 months to test for HPV DNA.

The researchers detected 38 persistent HPV 16/18 infections in women who had tested negative for HPV 16/18 antibodies at enrollment and for HPV 16/18 DNA at enrollment and month 3 – one in each of the HPV-vaccine groups and 36 in the meningococcal group. This infection rate corresponded to a vaccine efficacy of 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and nonavalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers write.

Among women negative for HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 at the beginning of the trial, 33 had persistent infections: four in the nonavalent vaccine group and 29 in the meningococcal group, demonstrating an efficacy of 89% (P < .001) against all seven oncogenic strains contained in the vaccine.

Even if women tested positive for one strain of HPV, the vaccine protected them from other strains of the virus, the investigators noted.

Serious adverse events occurred in 4.5%-5.2% of participants across the study arms.

The KEN SHE trial comes 15 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine – Merck’s Gardasil. Two others, Cervarix and Gardasil-9, have since been approved, but cost and supply issues have inhibited coverage, particularly in areas where the cervical cancer burden is high, the researchers noted.

Recent data indicate that just 15% of girls globally are vaccinated against HPV, but a single-dose vaccine would “simplify logistics and decrease costs,” thereby improving the chances of reaching the World Health Organization goal of vaccinating 90% of 15-year-old girls against HPV by 2030, Dr. Barnabas said in a press release about the trial.

Co–principal investigator Nelly Mugo, MBChB, MPH, senior principal clinical research scientist with the Center for Clinical Research at the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi, further emphasized the importance of the findings, noting in the press release that the “trial brings new energy to the elimination of cervical cancer. It brings great hope to the women living in countries like Kenya, who have a high burden of the disease.”

Dr. Mugo is also an associate research professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Barnabas said women have been given multiple doses of the HPV vaccine because of “gaps in evidence for the effectiveness of a single-dose vaccine and concerns about clinically meaningful differences in efficacy.

“Observational data suggested that the single-dose HPV vaccine could have good efficacy, but because the data were not from randomized trials, that could have been from chance,” she explained, noting, however, that “sufficient evidence supported the decrease in doses from three to two doses for girls 15 years of age and younger.”

Going forward, the researchers will conduct immunobridging studies to other populations and will continue follow-up to assess the durability of single-dose efficacy, Dr. Barnabas said.

“The results from the KEN SHE trial support the use of single-dose HPV vaccination to increase access and coverage,” she concluded.

The KEN SHE trial was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Dr. Barnabas reports grants from BMGF and grants from King K. Holmes Professorship in STDs and AIDS during the conduct of the study, and grants from BMGF, National Institutes of Health, and manuscript and abstract writing support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

A single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens, according to results from the KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya.

The findings, published on the preprint server Research Square and presented Nov. 17 at the 34th International Papillomavirus Conference in Toronto, bring “renewed energy to the push to make cervical cancer the first cancer to be wiped out globally,” according to co–principal investigator Ruanne V. Barnabas, PhD, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Decision-makers will consider these findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other evidence to determine if dosing-schedule changes are warranted, she told this news organization.

In a press release, Samuel Kariuki, PhD, acting director general, Kenya Medical Research Institute, who was not involved in the research, called the findings a “game changer” that could “substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-attributable cervical cancer.”

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Barnabas and her colleagues enrolled 2,275 sexually active, HPV-vaccine–naive women in Kenya in their study. The women, 15-20 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive a bivalent vaccine (HPV 16/18), a nonavalent vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11), or a vaccine against meningococcal meningitis.

Most participants (57%) were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 61% reported one lifetime sexual partner. The women underwent genital and cervical swabs at enrollment to test for HPV DNA and had blood drawn to test for antibodies. During 18 months of follow-up, they had cervical swabs every 6 months and a vaginal swab at 3 months to test for HPV DNA.

The researchers detected 38 persistent HPV 16/18 infections in women who had tested negative for HPV 16/18 antibodies at enrollment and for HPV 16/18 DNA at enrollment and month 3 – one in each of the HPV-vaccine groups and 36 in the meningococcal group. This infection rate corresponded to a vaccine efficacy of 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and nonavalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers write.

Among women negative for HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 at the beginning of the trial, 33 had persistent infections: four in the nonavalent vaccine group and 29 in the meningococcal group, demonstrating an efficacy of 89% (P < .001) against all seven oncogenic strains contained in the vaccine.

Even if women tested positive for one strain of HPV, the vaccine protected them from other strains of the virus, the investigators noted.

Serious adverse events occurred in 4.5%-5.2% of participants across the study arms.

The KEN SHE trial comes 15 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine – Merck’s Gardasil. Two others, Cervarix and Gardasil-9, have since been approved, but cost and supply issues have inhibited coverage, particularly in areas where the cervical cancer burden is high, the researchers noted.

Recent data indicate that just 15% of girls globally are vaccinated against HPV, but a single-dose vaccine would “simplify logistics and decrease costs,” thereby improving the chances of reaching the World Health Organization goal of vaccinating 90% of 15-year-old girls against HPV by 2030, Dr. Barnabas said in a press release about the trial.

Co–principal investigator Nelly Mugo, MBChB, MPH, senior principal clinical research scientist with the Center for Clinical Research at the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi, further emphasized the importance of the findings, noting in the press release that the “trial brings new energy to the elimination of cervical cancer. It brings great hope to the women living in countries like Kenya, who have a high burden of the disease.”

Dr. Mugo is also an associate research professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Barnabas said women have been given multiple doses of the HPV vaccine because of “gaps in evidence for the effectiveness of a single-dose vaccine and concerns about clinically meaningful differences in efficacy.

“Observational data suggested that the single-dose HPV vaccine could have good efficacy, but because the data were not from randomized trials, that could have been from chance,” she explained, noting, however, that “sufficient evidence supported the decrease in doses from three to two doses for girls 15 years of age and younger.”

Going forward, the researchers will conduct immunobridging studies to other populations and will continue follow-up to assess the durability of single-dose efficacy, Dr. Barnabas said.

“The results from the KEN SHE trial support the use of single-dose HPV vaccination to increase access and coverage,” she concluded.

The KEN SHE trial was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Dr. Barnabas reports grants from BMGF and grants from King K. Holmes Professorship in STDs and AIDS during the conduct of the study, and grants from BMGF, National Institutes of Health, and manuscript and abstract writing support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

A single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens, according to results from the KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya.

The findings, published on the preprint server Research Square and presented Nov. 17 at the 34th International Papillomavirus Conference in Toronto, bring “renewed energy to the push to make cervical cancer the first cancer to be wiped out globally,” according to co–principal investigator Ruanne V. Barnabas, PhD, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Decision-makers will consider these findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other evidence to determine if dosing-schedule changes are warranted, she told this news organization.

In a press release, Samuel Kariuki, PhD, acting director general, Kenya Medical Research Institute, who was not involved in the research, called the findings a “game changer” that could “substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-attributable cervical cancer.”

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Barnabas and her colleagues enrolled 2,275 sexually active, HPV-vaccine–naive women in Kenya in their study. The women, 15-20 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive a bivalent vaccine (HPV 16/18), a nonavalent vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11), or a vaccine against meningococcal meningitis.

Most participants (57%) were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 61% reported one lifetime sexual partner. The women underwent genital and cervical swabs at enrollment to test for HPV DNA and had blood drawn to test for antibodies. During 18 months of follow-up, they had cervical swabs every 6 months and a vaginal swab at 3 months to test for HPV DNA.

The researchers detected 38 persistent HPV 16/18 infections in women who had tested negative for HPV 16/18 antibodies at enrollment and for HPV 16/18 DNA at enrollment and month 3 – one in each of the HPV-vaccine groups and 36 in the meningococcal group. This infection rate corresponded to a vaccine efficacy of 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and nonavalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers write.

Among women negative for HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 at the beginning of the trial, 33 had persistent infections: four in the nonavalent vaccine group and 29 in the meningococcal group, demonstrating an efficacy of 89% (P < .001) against all seven oncogenic strains contained in the vaccine.

Even if women tested positive for one strain of HPV, the vaccine protected them from other strains of the virus, the investigators noted.

Serious adverse events occurred in 4.5%-5.2% of participants across the study arms.

The KEN SHE trial comes 15 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine – Merck’s Gardasil. Two others, Cervarix and Gardasil-9, have since been approved, but cost and supply issues have inhibited coverage, particularly in areas where the cervical cancer burden is high, the researchers noted.

Recent data indicate that just 15% of girls globally are vaccinated against HPV, but a single-dose vaccine would “simplify logistics and decrease costs,” thereby improving the chances of reaching the World Health Organization goal of vaccinating 90% of 15-year-old girls against HPV by 2030, Dr. Barnabas said in a press release about the trial.

Co–principal investigator Nelly Mugo, MBChB, MPH, senior principal clinical research scientist with the Center for Clinical Research at the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi, further emphasized the importance of the findings, noting in the press release that the “trial brings new energy to the elimination of cervical cancer. It brings great hope to the women living in countries like Kenya, who have a high burden of the disease.”

Dr. Mugo is also an associate research professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Barnabas said women have been given multiple doses of the HPV vaccine because of “gaps in evidence for the effectiveness of a single-dose vaccine and concerns about clinically meaningful differences in efficacy.

“Observational data suggested that the single-dose HPV vaccine could have good efficacy, but because the data were not from randomized trials, that could have been from chance,” she explained, noting, however, that “sufficient evidence supported the decrease in doses from three to two doses for girls 15 years of age and younger.”

Going forward, the researchers will conduct immunobridging studies to other populations and will continue follow-up to assess the durability of single-dose efficacy, Dr. Barnabas said.

“The results from the KEN SHE trial support the use of single-dose HPV vaccination to increase access and coverage,” she concluded.

The KEN SHE trial was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Dr. Barnabas reports grants from BMGF and grants from King K. Holmes Professorship in STDs and AIDS during the conduct of the study, and grants from BMGF, National Institutes of Health, and manuscript and abstract writing support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.

The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before.  He sought testing on Nov. 24.  His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health.  The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.

He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.

“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”

The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.

This breaking news story will be updated.

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

A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.

The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before.  He sought testing on Nov. 24.  His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health.  The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.

He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.

“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”

The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.

This breaking news story will be updated.

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

A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.

The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before.  He sought testing on Nov. 24.  His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health.  The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.

He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.

“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”

The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.

This breaking news story will be updated.

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

Private insurers will soon be required to reimburse people enrolled in their plans for the cost of at-home, rapid COVID-19 tests, and mask mandates will be extended for air, rail and bus travelers through at least mid-March.

The measures are part of a suite of new actions President Joe Biden is expected to announce later today, Dec. 2, in the wake of the arrival of the Omicron variant in the United States. The White House’s initiatives are designed to fight an expected winter surge of COVID-19 infections, according to sources familiar with the president’s plans.

At about $24 per package, rapid COVID-19 testing remains prohibitively expensive for many, even after a promise to bring the tests to Americans at a wholesale cost.

Other countries have rapid tests available for free or about $1 per test, and many experts say more frequent use of rapid tests could help stop transmission of COVID-19 virus.

About 150 million Americans would be eligible for reimbursement for rapid tests through their insurance plans.

In addition to those steps, international travelers flying into the United States will soon be required to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 24 hours of their departure, whether they are vaccinated or not.

In keeping with the six-part plan to fight COVID-19 the administration outlined in August, the president’s new plan is centered around vaccinations for all eligible Americans, including booster doses for the estimated 100 million adults who are now at least 6 months past their second doses of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 2 months past a Johnson & Johnson shot.

Those plans, which relied on vaccine mandates for most workers, have been stymied by recent court rulings blocking implementation of those requirements.

As the issue makes its way through the courts, Biden is expected to call on companies to voluntarily implement vaccination requirements for their workers, which he says are helping to close vaccination gaps.

Biden is also expected to outline a new push to get booster shots to all adults, with an emphasis on reaching seniors, who are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

The president is scheduled to speak at 1:40 PM on Dec. 2 at the National Institutes of Health.

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

Private insurers will soon be required to reimburse people enrolled in their plans for the cost of at-home, rapid COVID-19 tests, and mask mandates will be extended for air, rail and bus travelers through at least mid-March.

The measures are part of a suite of new actions President Joe Biden is expected to announce later today, Dec. 2, in the wake of the arrival of the Omicron variant in the United States. The White House’s initiatives are designed to fight an expected winter surge of COVID-19 infections, according to sources familiar with the president’s plans.

At about $24 per package, rapid COVID-19 testing remains prohibitively expensive for many, even after a promise to bring the tests to Americans at a wholesale cost.

Other countries have rapid tests available for free or about $1 per test, and many experts say more frequent use of rapid tests could help stop transmission of COVID-19 virus.

About 150 million Americans would be eligible for reimbursement for rapid tests through their insurance plans.

In addition to those steps, international travelers flying into the United States will soon be required to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 24 hours of their departure, whether they are vaccinated or not.

In keeping with the six-part plan to fight COVID-19 the administration outlined in August, the president’s new plan is centered around vaccinations for all eligible Americans, including booster doses for the estimated 100 million adults who are now at least 6 months past their second doses of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 2 months past a Johnson & Johnson shot.

Those plans, which relied on vaccine mandates for most workers, have been stymied by recent court rulings blocking implementation of those requirements.

As the issue makes its way through the courts, Biden is expected to call on companies to voluntarily implement vaccination requirements for their workers, which he says are helping to close vaccination gaps.

Biden is also expected to outline a new push to get booster shots to all adults, with an emphasis on reaching seniors, who are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

The president is scheduled to speak at 1:40 PM on Dec. 2 at the National Institutes of Health.

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

Private insurers will soon be required to reimburse people enrolled in their plans for the cost of at-home, rapid COVID-19 tests, and mask mandates will be extended for air, rail and bus travelers through at least mid-March.

The measures are part of a suite of new actions President Joe Biden is expected to announce later today, Dec. 2, in the wake of the arrival of the Omicron variant in the United States. The White House’s initiatives are designed to fight an expected winter surge of COVID-19 infections, according to sources familiar with the president’s plans.

At about $24 per package, rapid COVID-19 testing remains prohibitively expensive for many, even after a promise to bring the tests to Americans at a wholesale cost.

Other countries have rapid tests available for free or about $1 per test, and many experts say more frequent use of rapid tests could help stop transmission of COVID-19 virus.

About 150 million Americans would be eligible for reimbursement for rapid tests through their insurance plans.

In addition to those steps, international travelers flying into the United States will soon be required to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 24 hours of their departure, whether they are vaccinated or not.

In keeping with the six-part plan to fight COVID-19 the administration outlined in August, the president’s new plan is centered around vaccinations for all eligible Americans, including booster doses for the estimated 100 million adults who are now at least 6 months past their second doses of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 2 months past a Johnson & Johnson shot.

Those plans, which relied on vaccine mandates for most workers, have been stymied by recent court rulings blocking implementation of those requirements.

As the issue makes its way through the courts, Biden is expected to call on companies to voluntarily implement vaccination requirements for their workers, which he says are helping to close vaccination gaps.

Biden is also expected to outline a new push to get booster shots to all adults, with an emphasis on reaching seniors, who are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

The president is scheduled to speak at 1:40 PM on Dec. 2 at the National Institutes of Health.

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

It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear

We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?

Deagreez/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.

In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.

That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.

Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
 

Singing … your … lungs … out

There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.

lisegagne/E+/Getty Images

A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.

After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.

So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
 

And the word of the year is …

Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.

NoSystem images/Getty Images

We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”

Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.

Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!

It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear

We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?

Deagreez/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.

In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.

That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.

Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
 

Singing … your … lungs … out

There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.

lisegagne/E+/Getty Images

A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.

After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.

So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
 

And the word of the year is …

Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.

NoSystem images/Getty Images

We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”

Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.

Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!

It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear

We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?

Deagreez/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.

In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.

That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.

Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
 

Singing … your … lungs … out

There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.

lisegagne/E+/Getty Images

A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.

After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.

So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
 

And the word of the year is …

Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.

NoSystem images/Getty Images

We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”

Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.

Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!

Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.

Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.

Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.

The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.

Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.

The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).

When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.

These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.

In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.

The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.

The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.

“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
 

Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma

“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.

“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.

Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.

“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.

“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.

Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.

The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.

Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.

Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.

The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.

Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.

The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).

When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.

These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.

In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.

The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.

The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.

“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
 

Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma

“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.

“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.

Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.

“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.

“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.

Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.

The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.

Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.

Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.

The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.

Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.

The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).

When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.

These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.

In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.

The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.

The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.

“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
 

Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma

“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.

“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.

Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.

“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.

“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.

Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.

The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Two different studies have found that, provided young females are immunized with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine at a young enough age, both the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer can be dramatically curtailed, data from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States indicate.

In the U.K. study, published online in The Lancet, researchers showed that the national vaccination program against HPV, initiated in England in 2008, has all but eradicated cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) in young girls who received the vaccine at the age of 12 and 13 years (school year 8) prior to their sexual debut.

In this age group, cervical cancer rates were 87% lower than rates among previously nonvaccinated generations, while CIN3 rates were reduced by 97%, as researchers report. “It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding,” he added.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, UK Health Security Agency, London, said in the same statement.

“This represents an important step forward in cervical cancer prevention, and we hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated,” she added.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the UK Health Security Agency, agreed, adding that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.”

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she reemphasized.
 

British HPV program

When initiated in 2008, the national HPV vaccination program used the bivalent, Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18. As researchers noted, these two HPV types are responsible for 70%-80% of all cervical cancers in England.

However, in 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil) which is also effective against two additional HPV types, 6 and 11, both of which cause genital warts. The program also originally recommended the three-dose regimen for both HPV vaccines.

Now, only two doses of the vaccine are given to girls under the age of 15 even though it has been shown that a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection, with efficacy rates that are similar to that of three doses, as the authors point out.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12 or 13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine while 85% of the same age group received all three shots.
 

Cancer registry

Data from a population-based cancer registry was used to estimate the early effect of the bivalent HPV program on the incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 in England between January 2006 and June 2019. During the study interval, there were 27,946 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 318,058 diagnoses of CIN3, lead author Milena Falcaro, MD, King’s College London, and colleagues report. Participants were then analyzed separately according to their age at the time of vaccination and the incidence rates calculated for both cervical cancer and CIN3 in the three separate groups.

For slightly older girls who received the vaccine between 14 and 16 years of age (school year 10-11), cervical cancer was reduced by 62% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 75%. For those who received the vaccine between 16 and 18 years of age (school year 12-13), cervical cancer rates were reduced by 34% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 39%, study authors add.

Indeed, the authors estimate that by June 2019 there were approximately 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would otherwise have been expected in the vaccinated population in England.

The authors acknowledge that cervical cancer is rare in young women and vaccinated populations are still young. For example, the youngest recipients would have been immunized at the age of 12 in 2008 and would still be only 23 years old in 2019 when the study ended.

Thus, the authors emphasize that, because the vaccinated populations are still young, it’s too early to assess the full effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.

Asked to comment on the study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, pointed out that results from the British study are very similar to those from a Swedish study assessing the effect of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. As an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years – particularly advanced cervical cancer – “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful,” he stressed.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, editorialists Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania, point out that published reports evaluating the effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates have been scarce until now.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by the WHO [World Health Organization],” the editorialists add.

Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Grigore also suggest that the effect HPV vaccination is having on cervical cancer rates as shown in this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries where cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than it is in countries with established systems of vaccination and screening.
 

HPV vaccination in the United States

The HPV vaccination program is similarly reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer among younger women in the United States who are most likely to have received the vaccine. As reported by lead author, Justin Barnes, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 37.7% from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017 in girls and young women between 15 and 24 years of age.

The U.S. study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. has improved over the last few years although it was quite poor for many years,” senior author of the U.K. study, Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in an interview. “Thus, one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S., because vaccine uptake, particularly in those aged 11-14 years was so much lower than it was in the U.K.,” he noted.
 

SEER databases

National age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality data from January 2001 through December 2017 for women and girls between 15 and 39 years of age were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results as well as the National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Mortality data was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Investigators then compared percentage changes in the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer from January 2001 through December 2005 during the prevaccination years to that observed between January 2010 through December 2017 during the postvaccination years. They also compared incidence and mortality rates in three different cohorts: females between 15 and 24 years of age, those between 25 and 29 years of age, and those between 30 and 39 years of age.

“The older two groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” the authors explained. Results showed that, during the same study interval from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by only 16.1% in women between 25 and 29 years of age and by only 8% for women between 30 and 39 years of age, the investigators report.

Reductions in mortality from cervical cancer were only strikingly so in the youngest age group of females between 15 and 24 years of age, among whom there was a 43.3% reduction in mortality from 2001-2005 to 2010-2017, as Dr. Barnes and colleagues note.

This pattern changed substantially in women between the ages of 25 and 29, among whom there was a 4.3% increase in mortality from cervical cancer during the same study interval and a small, 4.7% reduction among women between 30 and 39 years of age, investigators add. In actual numbers, mortality rates from cervical cancer were very low at only 0.6 per 100,000 in females between 15 and 24 years of age.

This compared to a mortality rate of 0.57 per 100,000 in women between 25 and 29 years of age and 1.89 per 100,000 in the oldest age group. “These nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes notes.

“Thus, the current study adds to knowledge by quantitatively comparing changes in cervical cancer incidence by age-based vaccine eligibility and providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators add.

However, as the authors also point out, while the reduction in mortality from cervical cancer associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” they caution, “and efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.”

None of the authors or the editorialists had any conflicts of interest to declare.

Two different studies have found that, provided young females are immunized with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine at a young enough age, both the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer can be dramatically curtailed, data from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States indicate.

In the U.K. study, published online in The Lancet, researchers showed that the national vaccination program against HPV, initiated in England in 2008, has all but eradicated cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) in young girls who received the vaccine at the age of 12 and 13 years (school year 8) prior to their sexual debut.

In this age group, cervical cancer rates were 87% lower than rates among previously nonvaccinated generations, while CIN3 rates were reduced by 97%, as researchers report. “It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding,” he added.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, UK Health Security Agency, London, said in the same statement.

“This represents an important step forward in cervical cancer prevention, and we hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated,” she added.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the UK Health Security Agency, agreed, adding that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.”

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she reemphasized.
 

British HPV program

When initiated in 2008, the national HPV vaccination program used the bivalent, Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18. As researchers noted, these two HPV types are responsible for 70%-80% of all cervical cancers in England.

However, in 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil) which is also effective against two additional HPV types, 6 and 11, both of which cause genital warts. The program also originally recommended the three-dose regimen for both HPV vaccines.

Now, only two doses of the vaccine are given to girls under the age of 15 even though it has been shown that a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection, with efficacy rates that are similar to that of three doses, as the authors point out.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12 or 13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine while 85% of the same age group received all three shots.
 

Cancer registry

Data from a population-based cancer registry was used to estimate the early effect of the bivalent HPV program on the incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 in England between January 2006 and June 2019. During the study interval, there were 27,946 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 318,058 diagnoses of CIN3, lead author Milena Falcaro, MD, King’s College London, and colleagues report. Participants were then analyzed separately according to their age at the time of vaccination and the incidence rates calculated for both cervical cancer and CIN3 in the three separate groups.

For slightly older girls who received the vaccine between 14 and 16 years of age (school year 10-11), cervical cancer was reduced by 62% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 75%. For those who received the vaccine between 16 and 18 years of age (school year 12-13), cervical cancer rates were reduced by 34% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 39%, study authors add.

Indeed, the authors estimate that by June 2019 there were approximately 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would otherwise have been expected in the vaccinated population in England.

The authors acknowledge that cervical cancer is rare in young women and vaccinated populations are still young. For example, the youngest recipients would have been immunized at the age of 12 in 2008 and would still be only 23 years old in 2019 when the study ended.

Thus, the authors emphasize that, because the vaccinated populations are still young, it’s too early to assess the full effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.

Asked to comment on the study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, pointed out that results from the British study are very similar to those from a Swedish study assessing the effect of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. As an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years – particularly advanced cervical cancer – “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful,” he stressed.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, editorialists Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania, point out that published reports evaluating the effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates have been scarce until now.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by the WHO [World Health Organization],” the editorialists add.

Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Grigore also suggest that the effect HPV vaccination is having on cervical cancer rates as shown in this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries where cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than it is in countries with established systems of vaccination and screening.
 

HPV vaccination in the United States

The HPV vaccination program is similarly reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer among younger women in the United States who are most likely to have received the vaccine. As reported by lead author, Justin Barnes, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 37.7% from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017 in girls and young women between 15 and 24 years of age.

The U.S. study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. has improved over the last few years although it was quite poor for many years,” senior author of the U.K. study, Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in an interview. “Thus, one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S., because vaccine uptake, particularly in those aged 11-14 years was so much lower than it was in the U.K.,” he noted.
 

SEER databases

National age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality data from January 2001 through December 2017 for women and girls between 15 and 39 years of age were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results as well as the National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Mortality data was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Investigators then compared percentage changes in the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer from January 2001 through December 2005 during the prevaccination years to that observed between January 2010 through December 2017 during the postvaccination years. They also compared incidence and mortality rates in three different cohorts: females between 15 and 24 years of age, those between 25 and 29 years of age, and those between 30 and 39 years of age.

“The older two groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” the authors explained. Results showed that, during the same study interval from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by only 16.1% in women between 25 and 29 years of age and by only 8% for women between 30 and 39 years of age, the investigators report.

Reductions in mortality from cervical cancer were only strikingly so in the youngest age group of females between 15 and 24 years of age, among whom there was a 43.3% reduction in mortality from 2001-2005 to 2010-2017, as Dr. Barnes and colleagues note.

This pattern changed substantially in women between the ages of 25 and 29, among whom there was a 4.3% increase in mortality from cervical cancer during the same study interval and a small, 4.7% reduction among women between 30 and 39 years of age, investigators add. In actual numbers, mortality rates from cervical cancer were very low at only 0.6 per 100,000 in females between 15 and 24 years of age.

This compared to a mortality rate of 0.57 per 100,000 in women between 25 and 29 years of age and 1.89 per 100,000 in the oldest age group. “These nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes notes.

“Thus, the current study adds to knowledge by quantitatively comparing changes in cervical cancer incidence by age-based vaccine eligibility and providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators add.

However, as the authors also point out, while the reduction in mortality from cervical cancer associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” they caution, “and efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.”

None of the authors or the editorialists had any conflicts of interest to declare.

Two different studies have found that, provided young females are immunized with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine at a young enough age, both the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer can be dramatically curtailed, data from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States indicate.

In the U.K. study, published online in The Lancet, researchers showed that the national vaccination program against HPV, initiated in England in 2008, has all but eradicated cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) in young girls who received the vaccine at the age of 12 and 13 years (school year 8) prior to their sexual debut.

In this age group, cervical cancer rates were 87% lower than rates among previously nonvaccinated generations, while CIN3 rates were reduced by 97%, as researchers report. “It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding,” he added.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, UK Health Security Agency, London, said in the same statement.

“This represents an important step forward in cervical cancer prevention, and we hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated,” she added.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the UK Health Security Agency, agreed, adding that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.”

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she reemphasized.
 

British HPV program

When initiated in 2008, the national HPV vaccination program used the bivalent, Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18. As researchers noted, these two HPV types are responsible for 70%-80% of all cervical cancers in England.

However, in 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil) which is also effective against two additional HPV types, 6 and 11, both of which cause genital warts. The program also originally recommended the three-dose regimen for both HPV vaccines.

Now, only two doses of the vaccine are given to girls under the age of 15 even though it has been shown that a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection, with efficacy rates that are similar to that of three doses, as the authors point out.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12 or 13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine while 85% of the same age group received all three shots.
 

Cancer registry

Data from a population-based cancer registry was used to estimate the early effect of the bivalent HPV program on the incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 in England between January 2006 and June 2019. During the study interval, there were 27,946 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 318,058 diagnoses of CIN3, lead author Milena Falcaro, MD, King’s College London, and colleagues report. Participants were then analyzed separately according to their age at the time of vaccination and the incidence rates calculated for both cervical cancer and CIN3 in the three separate groups.

For slightly older girls who received the vaccine between 14 and 16 years of age (school year 10-11), cervical cancer was reduced by 62% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 75%. For those who received the vaccine between 16 and 18 years of age (school year 12-13), cervical cancer rates were reduced by 34% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 39%, study authors add.

Indeed, the authors estimate that by June 2019 there were approximately 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would otherwise have been expected in the vaccinated population in England.

The authors acknowledge that cervical cancer is rare in young women and vaccinated populations are still young. For example, the youngest recipients would have been immunized at the age of 12 in 2008 and would still be only 23 years old in 2019 when the study ended.

Thus, the authors emphasize that, because the vaccinated populations are still young, it’s too early to assess the full effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.

Asked to comment on the study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, pointed out that results from the British study are very similar to those from a Swedish study assessing the effect of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. As an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years – particularly advanced cervical cancer – “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful,” he stressed.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, editorialists Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania, point out that published reports evaluating the effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates have been scarce until now.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by the WHO [World Health Organization],” the editorialists add.

Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Grigore also suggest that the effect HPV vaccination is having on cervical cancer rates as shown in this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries where cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than it is in countries with established systems of vaccination and screening.
 

HPV vaccination in the United States

The HPV vaccination program is similarly reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer among younger women in the United States who are most likely to have received the vaccine. As reported by lead author, Justin Barnes, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 37.7% from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017 in girls and young women between 15 and 24 years of age.

The U.S. study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. has improved over the last few years although it was quite poor for many years,” senior author of the U.K. study, Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in an interview. “Thus, one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S., because vaccine uptake, particularly in those aged 11-14 years was so much lower than it was in the U.K.,” he noted.
 

SEER databases

National age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality data from January 2001 through December 2017 for women and girls between 15 and 39 years of age were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results as well as the National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Mortality data was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Investigators then compared percentage changes in the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer from January 2001 through December 2005 during the prevaccination years to that observed between January 2010 through December 2017 during the postvaccination years. They also compared incidence and mortality rates in three different cohorts: females between 15 and 24 years of age, those between 25 and 29 years of age, and those between 30 and 39 years of age.

“The older two groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” the authors explained. Results showed that, during the same study interval from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by only 16.1% in women between 25 and 29 years of age and by only 8% for women between 30 and 39 years of age, the investigators report.

Reductions in mortality from cervical cancer were only strikingly so in the youngest age group of females between 15 and 24 years of age, among whom there was a 43.3% reduction in mortality from 2001-2005 to 2010-2017, as Dr. Barnes and colleagues note.

This pattern changed substantially in women between the ages of 25 and 29, among whom there was a 4.3% increase in mortality from cervical cancer during the same study interval and a small, 4.7% reduction among women between 30 and 39 years of age, investigators add. In actual numbers, mortality rates from cervical cancer were very low at only 0.6 per 100,000 in females between 15 and 24 years of age.

This compared to a mortality rate of 0.57 per 100,000 in women between 25 and 29 years of age and 1.89 per 100,000 in the oldest age group. “These nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes notes.

“Thus, the current study adds to knowledge by quantitatively comparing changes in cervical cancer incidence by age-based vaccine eligibility and providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators add.

However, as the authors also point out, while the reduction in mortality from cervical cancer associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” they caution, “and efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.”

None of the authors or the editorialists had any conflicts of interest to declare.

The reports from COVID-19 patients are disconcerting. Only a few hours before, they were enjoying a cup of pungent coffee or the fragrance of flowers in a garden. Then, as if a switch had been flipped, those smells disappeared.

Young and old alike are affected – more than 80%-90% of those diagnosed with the virus, according to some estimates. While most people recover in a few months, 16% take half a year or longer to do so, research has found. According to new estimates, up to 1.6 million Americans have chronic olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19.

Seniors are especially vulnerable, experts suggest. “We know that many older adults have a compromised sense of smell to begin with. Add to that the insult of COVID, and it made these problems worse,” said Dr. Jayant Pinto, professor of surgery and a specialist in sinus and nasal diseases at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Recent data highlight the interaction between COVID-19, advanced age, and loss of smell. When Italian researchers evaluated 101 patients who’d been hospitalized for mild to moderate COVID-19, 50 showed objective signs of smell impairment 6 months later. Those 65 or older were nearly twice as likely to be impaired; those 75 or older were more than 2½ times as likely.

Most people aren’t aware of the extent to which smell can be diminished in later life. More than half of 65- to 80-year-olds have some degree of smell loss, or olfactory dysfunction, as it’s known in the scientific literature. That rises to as high as 80% for those even older. People affected often report concerns about safety, less enjoyment eating, and an impaired quality of life.

But because the ability to detect, identify, and discriminate among odors declines gradually, most older adults – up to 75% of those with some degree of olfactory dysfunction – don’t realize they’re affected.

A host of factors are believed to contribute to age-related smell loss, including a reduction in the number of olfactory sensory neurons in the nose, which are essential for detecting odors; changes in stem cells that replenish these neurons every few months; atrophy of the processing center for smell in the brain, called the olfactory bulb; and the shrinkage of brain centers closely connected with the olfactory bulb, such as the hippocampus, a region central to learning and memory.

Also, environmental toxic substances such as air pollution play a part, research shows. “Olfactory neurons in your nose are basically little pieces of your brain hanging out in the outside world,” and exposure to them over time damages those neurons and the tissues that support them, explained Pamela Dalton, PhD, a principal investigator at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a smell and taste research institute in Philadelphia.

Still, the complex workings of the olfactory system have not been mapped in detail yet, and much remains unknown, said Dr. Sandeep Robert Datta, professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We tend to think of our sense of smell as primarily aesthetic,” he said. “What’s very clear is that it’s far more important. The olfactory system plays a key role in maintaining our emotional well-being and connecting us with the world.”

Dr. Datta experienced this after having a bone marrow transplant followed by chemotherapy years ago. Unable to smell or taste food, he said, he felt “very disoriented” in his environment.

Common consequences of smell loss include a loss of appetite (without smell, taste is deeply compromised), difficulty monitoring personal hygiene, depression, and an inability to detect noxious fumes. In older adults, this can lead to weight loss, malnutrition, frailty, inadequate personal care, and accidents caused by gas leaks or fires.

Jerome Pisano, 75, of Bloomington, Ill., has been living with smell loss for 5 years. Repeated tests and consultations with physicians haven’t pinpointed a reason for this ailment, and sometimes he feels “hopeless,” he admitted.

Before he became smell-impaired, Mr. Pisano was certified as a wine specialist. He has an 800-bottle wine cellar. “I can’t appreciate that as much as I’d like. I miss the smell of cut grass. Flowers. My wife’s cooking,” he said. “It certainly does decrease my quality of life.”

Smell loss is also associated in various research studies with a higher risk of death for older adults. One study, authored by Dr. Pinto and colleagues, found that older adults with olfactory dysfunction were nearly three times as likely to die over a period of 5 years as were seniors whose sense of smell remained intact.

“Our sense of smell signals how our nervous system is doing and how well our brain is doing overall,” Dr. Pinto said. According to a review published earlier this year, 90% of people with early-stage Parkinson’s disease and more than 80% of people with Alzheimer’s disease have olfactory dysfunction – a symptom that can precede other symptoms by many years.

There is no treatment for smell loss associated with neurological illness or head trauma, but if someone has persistent sinus problems or allergies that cause congestion, an over-the-counter antihistamine or nasal steroid spray can help. Usually, smell returns in a few weeks.

For smell loss following a viral infection, the picture is less clear. It’s not known, yet, which viruses are associated with olfactory dysfunction, why they damage smell, and what trajectory recovery takes. COVID-19 may help shine a light on this since it has inspired a wave of research on olfaction loss around the world.

“What characteristics make people more vulnerable to a persistent loss of smell after a virus? We don’t know that, but I think we will because that research is underway and we’ve never had a cohort [of people with smell loss] this large to study,” said Dr. Dalton, of the Monell center.

Some experts recommend smell training, noting evidence of efficacy and no indication of harm. This involves sniffing four distinct scents (often eucalyptus, lemon, rose, and cloves) twice a day for 30 seconds each, usually for 4 weeks. Sometimes the practice is combined with pictures of the items being smelled, a form of visual reinforcement.

The theory is that “practice, practice, practice” will stimulate the olfactory system, said Charles Greer, PhD, professor of neurosurgery and neuroscience at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Although scientific support isn’t well established, he said, he often recommends that people who think their smell is declining “get a shelf full of spices and smell them on a regular basis.”

Richard Doty, PhD, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Smell and Taste Center, remains skeptical. He’s writing a review of smell training and notes that 20%-30% of people with viral infections and smell loss recover in a relatively short time, whether or not they pursue this therapy.

“The main thing we recommend is avoid polluted environments and get your full complement of vitamins,” since several vitamins play an important role in maintaining the olfactory system, he said.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The reports from COVID-19 patients are disconcerting. Only a few hours before, they were enjoying a cup of pungent coffee or the fragrance of flowers in a garden. Then, as if a switch had been flipped, those smells disappeared.

Young and old alike are affected – more than 80%-90% of those diagnosed with the virus, according to some estimates. While most people recover in a few months, 16% take half a year or longer to do so, research has found. According to new estimates, up to 1.6 million Americans have chronic olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19.

Seniors are especially vulnerable, experts suggest. “We know that many older adults have a compromised sense of smell to begin with. Add to that the insult of COVID, and it made these problems worse,” said Dr. Jayant Pinto, professor of surgery and a specialist in sinus and nasal diseases at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Recent data highlight the interaction between COVID-19, advanced age, and loss of smell. When Italian researchers evaluated 101 patients who’d been hospitalized for mild to moderate COVID-19, 50 showed objective signs of smell impairment 6 months later. Those 65 or older were nearly twice as likely to be impaired; those 75 or older were more than 2½ times as likely.

Most people aren’t aware of the extent to which smell can be diminished in later life. More than half of 65- to 80-year-olds have some degree of smell loss, or olfactory dysfunction, as it’s known in the scientific literature. That rises to as high as 80% for those even older. People affected often report concerns about safety, less enjoyment eating, and an impaired quality of life.

But because the ability to detect, identify, and discriminate among odors declines gradually, most older adults – up to 75% of those with some degree of olfactory dysfunction – don’t realize they’re affected.

A host of factors are believed to contribute to age-related smell loss, including a reduction in the number of olfactory sensory neurons in the nose, which are essential for detecting odors; changes in stem cells that replenish these neurons every few months; atrophy of the processing center for smell in the brain, called the olfactory bulb; and the shrinkage of brain centers closely connected with the olfactory bulb, such as the hippocampus, a region central to learning and memory.

Also, environmental toxic substances such as air pollution play a part, research shows. “Olfactory neurons in your nose are basically little pieces of your brain hanging out in the outside world,” and exposure to them over time damages those neurons and the tissues that support them, explained Pamela Dalton, PhD, a principal investigator at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a smell and taste research institute in Philadelphia.

Still, the complex workings of the olfactory system have not been mapped in detail yet, and much remains unknown, said Dr. Sandeep Robert Datta, professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We tend to think of our sense of smell as primarily aesthetic,” he said. “What’s very clear is that it’s far more important. The olfactory system plays a key role in maintaining our emotional well-being and connecting us with the world.”

Dr. Datta experienced this after having a bone marrow transplant followed by chemotherapy years ago. Unable to smell or taste food, he said, he felt “very disoriented” in his environment.

Common consequences of smell loss include a loss of appetite (without smell, taste is deeply compromised), difficulty monitoring personal hygiene, depression, and an inability to detect noxious fumes. In older adults, this can lead to weight loss, malnutrition, frailty, inadequate personal care, and accidents caused by gas leaks or fires.

Jerome Pisano, 75, of Bloomington, Ill., has been living with smell loss for 5 years. Repeated tests and consultations with physicians haven’t pinpointed a reason for this ailment, and sometimes he feels “hopeless,” he admitted.

Before he became smell-impaired, Mr. Pisano was certified as a wine specialist. He has an 800-bottle wine cellar. “I can’t appreciate that as much as I’d like. I miss the smell of cut grass. Flowers. My wife’s cooking,” he said. “It certainly does decrease my quality of life.”

Smell loss is also associated in various research studies with a higher risk of death for older adults. One study, authored by Dr. Pinto and colleagues, found that older adults with olfactory dysfunction were nearly three times as likely to die over a period of 5 years as were seniors whose sense of smell remained intact.

“Our sense of smell signals how our nervous system is doing and how well our brain is doing overall,” Dr. Pinto said. According to a review published earlier this year, 90% of people with early-stage Parkinson’s disease and more than 80% of people with Alzheimer’s disease have olfactory dysfunction – a symptom that can precede other symptoms by many years.

There is no treatment for smell loss associated with neurological illness or head trauma, but if someone has persistent sinus problems or allergies that cause congestion, an over-the-counter antihistamine or nasal steroid spray can help. Usually, smell returns in a few weeks.

For smell loss following a viral infection, the picture is less clear. It’s not known, yet, which viruses are associated with olfactory dysfunction, why they damage smell, and what trajectory recovery takes. COVID-19 may help shine a light on this since it has inspired a wave of research on olfaction loss around the world.

“What characteristics make people more vulnerable to a persistent loss of smell after a virus? We don’t know that, but I think we will because that research is underway and we’ve never had a cohort [of people with smell loss] this large to study,” said Dr. Dalton, of the Monell center.

Some experts recommend smell training, noting evidence of efficacy and no indication of harm. This involves sniffing four distinct scents (often eucalyptus, lemon, rose, and cloves) twice a day for 30 seconds each, usually for 4 weeks. Sometimes the practice is combined with pictures of the items being smelled, a form of visual reinforcement.

The theory is that “practice, practice, practice” will stimulate the olfactory system, said Charles Greer, PhD, professor of neurosurgery and neuroscience at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Although scientific support isn’t well established, he said, he often recommends that people who think their smell is declining “get a shelf full of spices and smell them on a regular basis.”

Richard Doty, PhD, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Smell and Taste Center, remains skeptical. He’s writing a review of smell training and notes that 20%-30% of people with viral infections and smell loss recover in a relatively short time, whether or not they pursue this therapy.

“The main thing we recommend is avoid polluted environments and get your full complement of vitamins,” since several vitamins play an important role in maintaining the olfactory system, he said.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The reports from COVID-19 patients are disconcerting. Only a few hours before, they were enjoying a cup of pungent coffee or the fragrance of flowers in a garden. Then, as if a switch had been flipped, those smells disappeared.

Young and old alike are affected – more than 80%-90% of those diagnosed with the virus, according to some estimates. While most people recover in a few months, 16% take half a year or longer to do so, research has found. According to new estimates, up to 1.6 million Americans have chronic olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19.

Seniors are especially vulnerable, experts suggest. “We know that many older adults have a compromised sense of smell to begin with. Add to that the insult of COVID, and it made these problems worse,” said Dr. Jayant Pinto, professor of surgery and a specialist in sinus and nasal diseases at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Recent data highlight the interaction between COVID-19, advanced age, and loss of smell. When Italian researchers evaluated 101 patients who’d been hospitalized for mild to moderate COVID-19, 50 showed objective signs of smell impairment 6 months later. Those 65 or older were nearly twice as likely to be impaired; those 75 or older were more than 2½ times as likely.

Most people aren’t aware of the extent to which smell can be diminished in later life. More than half of 65- to 80-year-olds have some degree of smell loss, or olfactory dysfunction, as it’s known in the scientific literature. That rises to as high as 80% for those even older. People affected often report concerns about safety, less enjoyment eating, and an impaired quality of life.

But because the ability to detect, identify, and discriminate among odors declines gradually, most older adults – up to 75% of those with some degree of olfactory dysfunction – don’t realize they’re affected.

A host of factors are believed to contribute to age-related smell loss, including a reduction in the number of olfactory sensory neurons in the nose, which are essential for detecting odors; changes in stem cells that replenish these neurons every few months; atrophy of the processing center for smell in the brain, called the olfactory bulb; and the shrinkage of brain centers closely connected with the olfactory bulb, such as the hippocampus, a region central to learning and memory.

Also, environmental toxic substances such as air pollution play a part, research shows. “Olfactory neurons in your nose are basically little pieces of your brain hanging out in the outside world,” and exposure to them over time damages those neurons and the tissues that support them, explained Pamela Dalton, PhD, a principal investigator at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a smell and taste research institute in Philadelphia.

Still, the complex workings of the olfactory system have not been mapped in detail yet, and much remains unknown, said Dr. Sandeep Robert Datta, professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We tend to think of our sense of smell as primarily aesthetic,” he said. “What’s very clear is that it’s far more important. The olfactory system plays a key role in maintaining our emotional well-being and connecting us with the world.”

Dr. Datta experienced this after having a bone marrow transplant followed by chemotherapy years ago. Unable to smell or taste food, he said, he felt “very disoriented” in his environment.

Common consequences of smell loss include a loss of appetite (without smell, taste is deeply compromised), difficulty monitoring personal hygiene, depression, and an inability to detect noxious fumes. In older adults, this can lead to weight loss, malnutrition, frailty, inadequate personal care, and accidents caused by gas leaks or fires.

Jerome Pisano, 75, of Bloomington, Ill., has been living with smell loss for 5 years. Repeated tests and consultations with physicians haven’t pinpointed a reason for this ailment, and sometimes he feels “hopeless,” he admitted.

Before he became smell-impaired, Mr. Pisano was certified as a wine specialist. He has an 800-bottle wine cellar. “I can’t appreciate that as much as I’d like. I miss the smell of cut grass. Flowers. My wife’s cooking,” he said. “It certainly does decrease my quality of life.”

Smell loss is also associated in various research studies with a higher risk of death for older adults. One study, authored by Dr. Pinto and colleagues, found that older adults with olfactory dysfunction were nearly three times as likely to die over a period of 5 years as were seniors whose sense of smell remained intact.

“Our sense of smell signals how our nervous system is doing and how well our brain is doing overall,” Dr. Pinto said. According to a review published earlier this year, 90% of people with early-stage Parkinson’s disease and more than 80% of people with Alzheimer’s disease have olfactory dysfunction – a symptom that can precede other symptoms by many years.

There is no treatment for smell loss associated with neurological illness or head trauma, but if someone has persistent sinus problems or allergies that cause congestion, an over-the-counter antihistamine or nasal steroid spray can help. Usually, smell returns in a few weeks.

For smell loss following a viral infection, the picture is less clear. It’s not known, yet, which viruses are associated with olfactory dysfunction, why they damage smell, and what trajectory recovery takes. COVID-19 may help shine a light on this since it has inspired a wave of research on olfaction loss around the world.

“What characteristics make people more vulnerable to a persistent loss of smell after a virus? We don’t know that, but I think we will because that research is underway and we’ve never had a cohort [of people with smell loss] this large to study,” said Dr. Dalton, of the Monell center.

Some experts recommend smell training, noting evidence of efficacy and no indication of harm. This involves sniffing four distinct scents (often eucalyptus, lemon, rose, and cloves) twice a day for 30 seconds each, usually for 4 weeks. Sometimes the practice is combined with pictures of the items being smelled, a form of visual reinforcement.

The theory is that “practice, practice, practice” will stimulate the olfactory system, said Charles Greer, PhD, professor of neurosurgery and neuroscience at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Although scientific support isn’t well established, he said, he often recommends that people who think their smell is declining “get a shelf full of spices and smell them on a regular basis.”

Richard Doty, PhD, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Smell and Taste Center, remains skeptical. He’s writing a review of smell training and notes that 20%-30% of people with viral infections and smell loss recover in a relatively short time, whether or not they pursue this therapy.

“The main thing we recommend is avoid polluted environments and get your full complement of vitamins,” since several vitamins play an important role in maintaining the olfactory system, he said.
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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