Ob.Gyn. News

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.

A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).

“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.

“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.

The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.

In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.

For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.

Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21). 

The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).

The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.

Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.

“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release. 

“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.

The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.

A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).

“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.

“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.

The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.

In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.

For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.

Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21). 

The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).

The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.

Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.

“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release. 

“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.

The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.

A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).

“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.

“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.

The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.

In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.

For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.

Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21). 

The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).

The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.

Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.

“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release. 

“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.

The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Three cups of tea, two biscuit packs, and a Christmas study from the BMJ

Warning: The following content may contain excessive Britishness. Continue at your own risk.

It’s no secret that the world economy is in an … interesting spot right now. Belt tightening is occurring around the world despite the holiday season, and hospitals across the pond in Great Britain are no exception.

PxHere

It was a simple sign that prompted the study, published in the Christmas edition of the BMJ: “Please do not take excessive quantities of these refreshments.” And if we all know one thing, you do not get between Brits and their tea and biscuits. So the researchers behind the study drafted a survey and sent it around to nearly 2,000 British health care workers and asked what they considered to be excessive consumption of work-provided hot drinks and biscuits.

In the hot drinks department (tea and coffee, though we appreciate the two people who voiced a preference for free hot whiskey, if it was available) the survey participants decreed that 3.32 drinks was the maximum before consumption became excessive. That’s pretty close to the actual number of hot drinks respondents drank daily (3.04), so it’s pretty fair to say that British health care workers do a good job of self-limiting.

It’s much the same story with biscuits: Health care workers reported that consuming 2.25 packets of free biscuits would be excessive. Notably, doctors would take more than nondoctors (2.35 vs. 2.14 – typical doctor behavior), and those who had been in their role for less than 2 years would consume nearly 3 packets a day before calling it quits.

The study did not include an official cost analysis, but calculations conducted on a biscuit wrapper (that’s not a joke, by the way) estimated that the combined cost for providing every National Health Service employee with three free drinks and two free biscuit packages a day would be about 160 million pounds a year. Now, that’s a lot of money for tea and biscuits, but, they added, it’s a meager 0.1% of the NHS annual budget. They also noted that most employees consider free hot drinks a more valuable workplace perk than free support for mental health.

In conclusion, the authors wrote, “As a target for cost-saving initiatives, limiting free refreshment consumption is really scraping the biscuit barrel (although some limits on hot whiskey availability may be necessary), and implementing, or continuing, perks that improve staff morale seems justifiable. … Healthcare employers should allow biscuits and hot drinks to be freely available to staff, and they should leave these grateful recipients to judge for themselves what constitutes reasonable consumption.”

Now there’s a Christmas sentiment we can all get behind.
 

We come not to bury sugar, but to improve it

When we think about sugar, healthy isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Research also shows that artificial sweeteners, as well as processed foods in general, are bad for your body and brain. People, however, love the stuff. That’s why one of the leading brands in processed foods, Kraft Heinz, partnered with the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard to find a way to reduce consumers’ sugar consumption.

Vassiliy Vassilenko/thinkstockphotos.com

The question that Kraft Heinz presented to Wyss was this: How could it reduce the fructose in its products without losing the functionality of regular sugar.

The Wyss team’s approach seems pretty simple: Use a naturally occurring enzyme to convert sugar to fiber. The trick was to add the enzymes into the food so they could convert the sugar to fiber after being consumed. The enzymes also needed to be able to be added to existing food products without changing their existing recipes, Kraft Heinz insisted.

How does it work? The crafted enzyme is encapsulated to remain dormant in the food until exposed to an increased pH level, as is found in the GI tract between the stomach and the intestine. It reduces the amount of sugar absorbed in the bloodstream and creates a healthy prebiotic fiber, the institute explained.

This opens a whole new window for consumers. People with diabetes can enjoy their favorite cookies from time to time, while parents can feel less guilty about their children bathing their chicken nuggets in unholy amounts of ketchup.
 

New genes, or not new genes? That is the question

… and the police report that no capybaras were harmed in the incident. What a relief. Now Action News 8 brings you Carol Espinosa’s exclusive interview with legendary scientist and zombie, Charles Darwin.

Carol: Thanks, Daryl. Tell us, Prof. Darwin, what have you been up to lately?

Gio_tto/Thinkstock

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Sleep-disordered breathing was significantly associated with increased odds of preeclampsia and with greater arterial stiffness in high-risk pregnancies, based on data from 181 individuals.

The intermittent hypoxia resulting from sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been linked to cardiovascular disease and hypertension, wrote Kim Phan, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues.

SDB has been associated with increased preeclampsia risk, and women with preeclampsia show increased arterial stiffness, but an association between SDB and arterial stiffness in pregnancy has not been explored, they said.

In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from 181 women with high-risk singleton pregnancies recruited from two tertiary obstetrics clinics in Montreal. High-risk pregnancy was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: age 35 years and older, body mass index 25 kg/m² or higher, chronic hypertension, preexisting diabetes mellitus, preexisting renal disease, or personal or first-degree relative with a history of preeclampsia.

Participants were assessed at each trimester via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and Restless Legs Syndrome questionnaire. Sleep-disordered breathing was defined as loud snoring or witnessed sleep apneas at least three times a week. Arterial stiffness was assessed via applanation tonometry every 4 weeks from baseline throughout pregnancy.

Overall, 23% of the study population met the criteria for SDB; SDB in the first or second trimester was associated with a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (odds ratio 3.4). The effect of SDB on preeclampsia was increased in women who reported excessive daytime sleepiness, defined as scores higher than 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The odds ratio for preeclampsia in the first or second trimester increased to 5.7 in women with hypersomnolence in addition to SDB. The risk of preeclampsia was even higher (OR 8.2) in the third trimester.

Self-reported total sleep time decreased in the second and third trimesters compared with the first, but reports of excessive daytime sleepiness remained consistent throughout the pregnancies, the researchers noted.

The results highlight the need to screen pregnant women for SDB in all three trimesters; however, “future studies will need to assess the incremental benefit of integrating SDB into risk assessment calculators in pregnancy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. Randomized trials are needed to determine the value of interventions such as continuous positive airway pressure to reduce arterial stiffness and the risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, they said. More data also are needed to examine the role of excessive daytime sleepiness as a modifier of arterial stiffness and preeclampsia risk, they noted.

The findings were limited by the prospective design, which prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on high-risk pregnancy, which may limit generalizability, and the use of symptoms, not sleep recordings, to identify SDB, they said.

However, the results show an independent association between SDB and arterial stiffness during pregnancy, and offer potentially useful insights into the mechanisms of SDB-associated cardiovascular conditions, they noted.

“This work may inform future studies exploring the value of using arterial stiffness, as an early noninvasive indicator of subclinical vascular dysfunction in pregnant women with SDB,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Quebec – Sante (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University’s academic enrichment fund, and the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in pregnant women has been shown to help protect infants against severe disease, according to the vaccine’s manufacturer.

Pfizer recently announced that in the course of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, the vaccine RSVpreF had an almost 82% efficacy against severe RSV infection in infants from birth through the first 90 days of life, according to a company press release.

The vaccine also had a 69% efficacy against severe disease through the first 6 months of life. A total of 7,400 women had received a single dose of 120 mcg RSVpreF in the late second or third trimester of their pregnancy. There were no signs of safety issues for the mothers or infants.

Due to the good results, the enrollment in the study was halted on the recommendation of the study’s Data Monitoring Committee after achieving a primary endpoint. The company plans to apply for marketing authorization to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2022 and to other regulatory agencies in 2023.

“The directness of the strategy, to vaccinate expectant mothers during pregnancy so that their newborn is then later protected, is new and a very interesting approach,” commented Prof. Ortwin Adams, MD, head of virologic diagnostics at the Institute for Virology of the University Hospital of Düsseldorf (Germany) to the Science Media Centre (SMC).

In terms of the RSV vaccination strategy presented, “the unborn child has taken center stage from the outset.” Because the vaccination route is the placental transfer of antibodies from mother to child (“passive immunity”), “... the medical points of contact for this vaccination will be the gynecologists, not the pediatricians,” Dr. Adams said.

“This concept imitates the natural process, since the mother normally passes immune defenses she acquired through infections to the child via the umbilical cord and her breast milk before and after birth. This procedure is long-proven and practiced worldwide, especially in nonindustrialized countries, for a variety of diseases, including tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), and viral flu (influenza),” explained Markus Rose, MD, PhD, head of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

The development of an RSV vaccine had ground to a halt for many decades: A tragedy in the 1960s set the whole field of research back. Using the model of the first polio vaccine, scientists had manufactured an experimental vaccine with inactivated viruses. However, tests showed that the vaccine did not protect the children vaccinated, but it actually infected them with RSV, they then fell ill, and two children died. Today, potential RSV vaccines are first tested on adults and not on children.
 

Few treatment options

RSV causes seasonal epidemics, can lead to bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants, and is one of the main causes of hospital stays in young children. Monoclonal antibodies are currently the only preventive option, since there is still no vaccine. Usually, 60%-70% of infants and nearly all children younger than 2 years are infected with RSV, but the virus can also trigger pneumonia in adults.

“RSV infections constitute a major public health challenge: It is the most dangerous respiratory virus for young infants, it is also a threat to the chronically ill and immunocompromised of all ages, and [it] is the second most common cause of death worldwide (after malaria) in young children,” stated Dr. Rose.

Recently, pandemic-related measures (face masks, more intense disinfection) meant that the “normal” RSV infections in healthy adults, which usually progress like a mild cold, were prevented, and mothers were unable to pass on as much RSV immune defense to their children. “This was presumably responsible in part for the massive wave of RSV infections in fall and winter of 2021/22,” explained Dr. Rose.

Thomas Mertens, MD, PhD, chair of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) and former director of the Institute for Virology at Ulm University Hospital, Germany, also noted: “It would be an important and potentially achievable goal to significantly reduce the incidence rate of hospitalizations. In this respect, RSV poses a significant problem for young children, their parents, and the burden on pediatric clinics.”
 

Final evaluation pending

“I am definitely finding the data interesting, but the original data are needed,” Dr. Mertens said. Once the data are published at a conference or published in a peer-reviewed journal, physicians will be able to better judge the data for themselves, he said.

Dr. Rose characterized the new vaccine as “novel,” including in terms of its composition. Earlier RSV vaccines used the so-called postfusion F protein as their starting point. But it has become known in the meantime that the key to immunogenicity is the continued prefusion state of the apical epitope: Prefusion F-specific memory B cells in adults naturally infected with RSV produce potent neutralizing antibodies.

The new vaccine is bivalent and protects against both RSV A and RSV B.

To date, RSV vaccination directly in young infants have had only had a weak efficacy and were sometimes poorly tolerated. The vaccine presented here is expected to be tested in young adults first, then in school children, then young children.

Through successful vaccination of the entire population, the transfer of RS viruses to young children could be prevented. “To what extent this, or any other RSV vaccine still to be developed on the same basis, will also be effective and well tolerated in young infants is still difficult to assess,” said Dr. Rose.

Dr. Mertens emphasized that all of the study data now needs to be seen as quickly as possible: “This is also a general requirement for transparency from the pharmaceutical companies, which is also rightly criticized.”

This article was originally published in Medscape’s German edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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