Ob.Gyn. News

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

Women who’ve had gestational diabetes are 40% more likely to develop coronary artery calcification later in life than are women haven’t, and attaining normal glycemic levels doesn’t diminish their midlife risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

“The new finding from this study is that women with gestational diabetes had twice the risk of coronary artery calcium, compared to women who never had gestational diabetes, even though both groups attained normal blood sugar levels many years after pregnancy,” lead author Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, MS, MPH, said in an interview about a community-based prospective cohort study of young adults followed for up to 25 years, which was published in Circulation (2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047320).

Previous studies have reported a higher risk of heart disease in women who had gestational diabetes (GD) and later developed type 2 diabetes, but they didn’t elucidate whether that risk carried over in GD patients whose glycemic levels were normal after pregnancy. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines specified that a history of GD increases women’s risk for coronary artery calcification (CAC).

This study analyzed data of 1,133 women ages 18-30 enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who had no diabetes in the baseline years of 1985-1986 and had given birth at least once in the ensuing 25 years. They had glucose tolerance testing at baseline and up to five times through the study period, along with evaluation for GD status and coronary artery calcification CAC measurements at least once at years 15, 20 and 25 (2001-2011).

CARDIA enrolled 5,155 young Black and White men and women ages 18-30 from four distinct geographic areas: Birmingham, Ala.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Oakland, Calif. About 52% of the study population was Black.

Of the women who’d given birth, 139 (12%) had GD. Their average age at follow-up was 47.6 years, and 25% of the GD patients (34) had CAC, compared with 15% (149/994) in the non-GD group.

Dr. Gunderson noted that the same relative risk for CAC applied to women who had GD and went on to develop prediabetes or were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up.
 

Risks persist even in normoglycemia

In the GD group, the adjusted hazard ratio for having CAC with normoglycemia was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.09). The researchers also calculated HRs for prediabetes and incident diabetes: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.06-2.24) in no-GD and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.09-4.17) for GD for prediabetes; and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.62) and 2.02 (95% CI, 0.98-4.19), respectively, for incident diabetes (P = .003).

“This means the risk of heart disease may be increased substantially in women with a history of gestational diabetes and may not diminish even if their blood-sugar levels remain normal for years later,” said Dr. Gunderson, an epidemiologist and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland.

“The clinical implications of our findings are that women with previous GD may benefit from enhanced traditional CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factor testing – i.e., for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperinsulinemia,” Dr. Gunderson said. “Our findings also suggest that it could be beneficial to incorporate history of GD into risk calculators to improve CVD risk stratification and prevention.”
 

Strong findings argue for more frequent CVD screening

These study results may be the strongest data to date on the long-term effects of GD, said Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s the strongest in the sense in that it’s sponsored, involved four different communities in different parts of the United States, enrolled individuals when they were young and followed them, and saw very few patients drop out for such a long-term study.” The study reported follow-up data on 72% of patients at 25 years, a rate Dr. Deedwania noted was “excellent.”

“Patients who have had GD should be screened aggressively – for not only diabetes, but other cardiovascular risk factors – early on to minimize the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is a very important point of this study,” he added. In the absence of a clinical guideline, Dr. Deedwania suggested women with GD might have screening for CV risk factors every 5-7 years depending on their risk profile, but emphasized that parameter isn’t settled.

Future research should focus on the link between GD and CVD risk, Dr. Gunderson said. “Research is needed to better characterize the severity of GD in relation to CVD outcomes, and to identify critical pregnancy-related periods to modify cardiometabolic risk.” The latter would include life-course studies across the full pregnancy continuum from preconception to lactation. “Interventions for primary prevention of CVD and the importance of modifiable lifestyle behaviors with the highest relevance to reduce both diabetes and CVD risks during the first year post partum merit increased research investigation,” she added.

Future studies might also explore the role of inflammation in the GD-CVD relationship, Dr. Deedwania said. “My hypothesis is, and it’s purely a hypothesis, that perhaps the presence of coronary artery calcification scores score in these individuals who were described as having normal glucose but who could be at risk could very well be related to the beginning of inflammation.”

Dr. Gunderson and Dr. Deedwania have no financial relationships to disclose. The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Women who’ve had gestational diabetes are 40% more likely to develop coronary artery calcification later in life than are women haven’t, and attaining normal glycemic levels doesn’t diminish their midlife risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

“The new finding from this study is that women with gestational diabetes had twice the risk of coronary artery calcium, compared to women who never had gestational diabetes, even though both groups attained normal blood sugar levels many years after pregnancy,” lead author Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, MS, MPH, said in an interview about a community-based prospective cohort study of young adults followed for up to 25 years, which was published in Circulation (2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047320).

Previous studies have reported a higher risk of heart disease in women who had gestational diabetes (GD) and later developed type 2 diabetes, but they didn’t elucidate whether that risk carried over in GD patients whose glycemic levels were normal after pregnancy. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines specified that a history of GD increases women’s risk for coronary artery calcification (CAC).

This study analyzed data of 1,133 women ages 18-30 enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who had no diabetes in the baseline years of 1985-1986 and had given birth at least once in the ensuing 25 years. They had glucose tolerance testing at baseline and up to five times through the study period, along with evaluation for GD status and coronary artery calcification CAC measurements at least once at years 15, 20 and 25 (2001-2011).

CARDIA enrolled 5,155 young Black and White men and women ages 18-30 from four distinct geographic areas: Birmingham, Ala.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Oakland, Calif. About 52% of the study population was Black.

Of the women who’d given birth, 139 (12%) had GD. Their average age at follow-up was 47.6 years, and 25% of the GD patients (34) had CAC, compared with 15% (149/994) in the non-GD group.

Dr. Gunderson noted that the same relative risk for CAC applied to women who had GD and went on to develop prediabetes or were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up.
 

Risks persist even in normoglycemia

In the GD group, the adjusted hazard ratio for having CAC with normoglycemia was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.09). The researchers also calculated HRs for prediabetes and incident diabetes: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.06-2.24) in no-GD and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.09-4.17) for GD for prediabetes; and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.62) and 2.02 (95% CI, 0.98-4.19), respectively, for incident diabetes (P = .003).

“This means the risk of heart disease may be increased substantially in women with a history of gestational diabetes and may not diminish even if their blood-sugar levels remain normal for years later,” said Dr. Gunderson, an epidemiologist and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland.

“The clinical implications of our findings are that women with previous GD may benefit from enhanced traditional CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factor testing – i.e., for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperinsulinemia,” Dr. Gunderson said. “Our findings also suggest that it could be beneficial to incorporate history of GD into risk calculators to improve CVD risk stratification and prevention.”
 

Strong findings argue for more frequent CVD screening

These study results may be the strongest data to date on the long-term effects of GD, said Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s the strongest in the sense in that it’s sponsored, involved four different communities in different parts of the United States, enrolled individuals when they were young and followed them, and saw very few patients drop out for such a long-term study.” The study reported follow-up data on 72% of patients at 25 years, a rate Dr. Deedwania noted was “excellent.”

“Patients who have had GD should be screened aggressively – for not only diabetes, but other cardiovascular risk factors – early on to minimize the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is a very important point of this study,” he added. In the absence of a clinical guideline, Dr. Deedwania suggested women with GD might have screening for CV risk factors every 5-7 years depending on their risk profile, but emphasized that parameter isn’t settled.

Future research should focus on the link between GD and CVD risk, Dr. Gunderson said. “Research is needed to better characterize the severity of GD in relation to CVD outcomes, and to identify critical pregnancy-related periods to modify cardiometabolic risk.” The latter would include life-course studies across the full pregnancy continuum from preconception to lactation. “Interventions for primary prevention of CVD and the importance of modifiable lifestyle behaviors with the highest relevance to reduce both diabetes and CVD risks during the first year post partum merit increased research investigation,” she added.

Future studies might also explore the role of inflammation in the GD-CVD relationship, Dr. Deedwania said. “My hypothesis is, and it’s purely a hypothesis, that perhaps the presence of coronary artery calcification scores score in these individuals who were described as having normal glucose but who could be at risk could very well be related to the beginning of inflammation.”

Dr. Gunderson and Dr. Deedwania have no financial relationships to disclose. The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Women who’ve had gestational diabetes are 40% more likely to develop coronary artery calcification later in life than are women haven’t, and attaining normal glycemic levels doesn’t diminish their midlife risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

“The new finding from this study is that women with gestational diabetes had twice the risk of coronary artery calcium, compared to women who never had gestational diabetes, even though both groups attained normal blood sugar levels many years after pregnancy,” lead author Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, MS, MPH, said in an interview about a community-based prospective cohort study of young adults followed for up to 25 years, which was published in Circulation (2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047320).

Previous studies have reported a higher risk of heart disease in women who had gestational diabetes (GD) and later developed type 2 diabetes, but they didn’t elucidate whether that risk carried over in GD patients whose glycemic levels were normal after pregnancy. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines specified that a history of GD increases women’s risk for coronary artery calcification (CAC).

This study analyzed data of 1,133 women ages 18-30 enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who had no diabetes in the baseline years of 1985-1986 and had given birth at least once in the ensuing 25 years. They had glucose tolerance testing at baseline and up to five times through the study period, along with evaluation for GD status and coronary artery calcification CAC measurements at least once at years 15, 20 and 25 (2001-2011).

CARDIA enrolled 5,155 young Black and White men and women ages 18-30 from four distinct geographic areas: Birmingham, Ala.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Oakland, Calif. About 52% of the study population was Black.

Of the women who’d given birth, 139 (12%) had GD. Their average age at follow-up was 47.6 years, and 25% of the GD patients (34) had CAC, compared with 15% (149/994) in the non-GD group.

Dr. Gunderson noted that the same relative risk for CAC applied to women who had GD and went on to develop prediabetes or were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up.
 

Risks persist even in normoglycemia

In the GD group, the adjusted hazard ratio for having CAC with normoglycemia was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.09). The researchers also calculated HRs for prediabetes and incident diabetes: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.06-2.24) in no-GD and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.09-4.17) for GD for prediabetes; and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.62) and 2.02 (95% CI, 0.98-4.19), respectively, for incident diabetes (P = .003).

“This means the risk of heart disease may be increased substantially in women with a history of gestational diabetes and may not diminish even if their blood-sugar levels remain normal for years later,” said Dr. Gunderson, an epidemiologist and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland.

“The clinical implications of our findings are that women with previous GD may benefit from enhanced traditional CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factor testing – i.e., for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperinsulinemia,” Dr. Gunderson said. “Our findings also suggest that it could be beneficial to incorporate history of GD into risk calculators to improve CVD risk stratification and prevention.”
 

Strong findings argue for more frequent CVD screening

These study results may be the strongest data to date on the long-term effects of GD, said Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s the strongest in the sense in that it’s sponsored, involved four different communities in different parts of the United States, enrolled individuals when they were young and followed them, and saw very few patients drop out for such a long-term study.” The study reported follow-up data on 72% of patients at 25 years, a rate Dr. Deedwania noted was “excellent.”

“Patients who have had GD should be screened aggressively – for not only diabetes, but other cardiovascular risk factors – early on to minimize the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is a very important point of this study,” he added. In the absence of a clinical guideline, Dr. Deedwania suggested women with GD might have screening for CV risk factors every 5-7 years depending on their risk profile, but emphasized that parameter isn’t settled.

Future research should focus on the link between GD and CVD risk, Dr. Gunderson said. “Research is needed to better characterize the severity of GD in relation to CVD outcomes, and to identify critical pregnancy-related periods to modify cardiometabolic risk.” The latter would include life-course studies across the full pregnancy continuum from preconception to lactation. “Interventions for primary prevention of CVD and the importance of modifiable lifestyle behaviors with the highest relevance to reduce both diabetes and CVD risks during the first year post partum merit increased research investigation,” she added.

Future studies might also explore the role of inflammation in the GD-CVD relationship, Dr. Deedwania said. “My hypothesis is, and it’s purely a hypothesis, that perhaps the presence of coronary artery calcification scores score in these individuals who were described as having normal glucose but who could be at risk could very well be related to the beginning of inflammation.”

Dr. Gunderson and Dr. Deedwania have no financial relationships to disclose. The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.