COVID-19 Updates

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

A few items bring back unpleasant memories of COVID-19, such as masks. However, they are among the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). If everyone had worn them correctly, the transmission could have been reduced as much as ninefold, according to a theoretical study published in Physical Review E by Richard P. Sear, PhD, from the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Study Overcomes Limitations

This study aimed to address the limitations of epidemiological investigations of masks, which can be complex and error-prone. Sear used data obtained from the UK’s COVID-19 app, totaling 7 million contacts, to create a mathematical model of virus transmission, focusing on the correlation between contact duration and infection. The model estimates that if all UK residents had worn masks during every potential exposure, virus transmission would have been approximately nine times lower.

Although this is a mathematical model, it adds to the growing evidence that supports the benefits of masks. Masks are among the best strategies for treating SARS-CoV-2. This conclusion has been supported by several systematic reviews and additional statistical studies. Conversely, the decision to relax and eliminate mask regulations has had consequences that have received little attention.

As expected, removing the mask mandate leads to increased virus transmission, resulting in more hospitalizations and deaths. A 2024 study estimated that in Japan, where cultural factors lead to much higher mask use in public than in Europe, the decline in mask use from 97% of the population in 2022 to 63% in October 2023 may have caused an additional 3500 deaths.

 

Impact Beyond SARS-CoV-2

One remarkable effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic was the probable extinction of an entire influenza strain (B/Yamagata), which could improve future influenza vaccines and significantly reduce the spread of respiratory syncytial virus. While this was not solely caused by masks, it was also influenced by emergency measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These behavioral changes can positively alter the landscape of infectious diseases.

Masks play a role in reducing influenza transmission during pandemics. Their effectiveness has been supported by several studies and systematic reviews on a wide range of respiratory viruses. A randomized clinical trial involving 4647 Norwegian participants from February to April 2023, published in May 2024 by the British Medical Journal, suggested that wearing a mask reduces the incidence of respiratory symptoms. Specifically, 8.9% of those who wore masks reported respiratory symptoms during the study period compared with 12.2% of those who did not, representing a relative risk reduction of 27%.

Widespread mask use could also protect against other factors such as fine particulate matter, indirectly reducing the risk for various health conditions. A retrospective study involving 7.8 million residents in the Chinese city of Weifang, published in December 2024 by BMC Public Health, suggested that mask use during the pandemic may have also protected the population from pollution, reducing the number of stroke cases by 38.6% over 33 months of follow-up.

Although there are still voices in bioethics calling for the reintroduction of mask mandates in public places, it is unlikely that, barring emergencies, mask mandates are politically and socially acceptable today. Mask use is also considered a politically polarizing topic in several Western countries. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, as we move away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can more objectively promote the use of masks in public places.

Communicating the importance of public health initiatives and persuading people to support them is a well-known challenge. However, scientific literature offers valuable insights. These include encouraging people to rely on rational thinking rather than emotions and providing information on how masks protect those around them. The fact that East Asian cultures tend to have a more positive relationship with the use of masks shows that, in principle, it is possible to make them acceptable. Data from studies suggest that, as we prepare for potential future pandemics, it may be time to move past polarization and reintroduce masks — not as a universal mandate but as an individual choice for many.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few items bring back unpleasant memories of COVID-19, such as masks. However, they are among the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). If everyone had worn them correctly, the transmission could have been reduced as much as ninefold, according to a theoretical study published in Physical Review E by Richard P. Sear, PhD, from the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Study Overcomes Limitations

This study aimed to address the limitations of epidemiological investigations of masks, which can be complex and error-prone. Sear used data obtained from the UK’s COVID-19 app, totaling 7 million contacts, to create a mathematical model of virus transmission, focusing on the correlation between contact duration and infection. The model estimates that if all UK residents had worn masks during every potential exposure, virus transmission would have been approximately nine times lower.

Although this is a mathematical model, it adds to the growing evidence that supports the benefits of masks. Masks are among the best strategies for treating SARS-CoV-2. This conclusion has been supported by several systematic reviews and additional statistical studies. Conversely, the decision to relax and eliminate mask regulations has had consequences that have received little attention.

As expected, removing the mask mandate leads to increased virus transmission, resulting in more hospitalizations and deaths. A 2024 study estimated that in Japan, where cultural factors lead to much higher mask use in public than in Europe, the decline in mask use from 97% of the population in 2022 to 63% in October 2023 may have caused an additional 3500 deaths.

 

Impact Beyond SARS-CoV-2

One remarkable effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic was the probable extinction of an entire influenza strain (B/Yamagata), which could improve future influenza vaccines and significantly reduce the spread of respiratory syncytial virus. While this was not solely caused by masks, it was also influenced by emergency measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These behavioral changes can positively alter the landscape of infectious diseases.

Masks play a role in reducing influenza transmission during pandemics. Their effectiveness has been supported by several studies and systematic reviews on a wide range of respiratory viruses. A randomized clinical trial involving 4647 Norwegian participants from February to April 2023, published in May 2024 by the British Medical Journal, suggested that wearing a mask reduces the incidence of respiratory symptoms. Specifically, 8.9% of those who wore masks reported respiratory symptoms during the study period compared with 12.2% of those who did not, representing a relative risk reduction of 27%.

Widespread mask use could also protect against other factors such as fine particulate matter, indirectly reducing the risk for various health conditions. A retrospective study involving 7.8 million residents in the Chinese city of Weifang, published in December 2024 by BMC Public Health, suggested that mask use during the pandemic may have also protected the population from pollution, reducing the number of stroke cases by 38.6% over 33 months of follow-up.

Although there are still voices in bioethics calling for the reintroduction of mask mandates in public places, it is unlikely that, barring emergencies, mask mandates are politically and socially acceptable today. Mask use is also considered a politically polarizing topic in several Western countries. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, as we move away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can more objectively promote the use of masks in public places.

Communicating the importance of public health initiatives and persuading people to support them is a well-known challenge. However, scientific literature offers valuable insights. These include encouraging people to rely on rational thinking rather than emotions and providing information on how masks protect those around them. The fact that East Asian cultures tend to have a more positive relationship with the use of masks shows that, in principle, it is possible to make them acceptable. Data from studies suggest that, as we prepare for potential future pandemics, it may be time to move past polarization and reintroduce masks — not as a universal mandate but as an individual choice for many.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few items bring back unpleasant memories of COVID-19, such as masks. However, they are among the simplest and most effective ways to prevent the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). If everyone had worn them correctly, the transmission could have been reduced as much as ninefold, according to a theoretical study published in Physical Review E by Richard P. Sear, PhD, from the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Study Overcomes Limitations

This study aimed to address the limitations of epidemiological investigations of masks, which can be complex and error-prone. Sear used data obtained from the UK’s COVID-19 app, totaling 7 million contacts, to create a mathematical model of virus transmission, focusing on the correlation between contact duration and infection. The model estimates that if all UK residents had worn masks during every potential exposure, virus transmission would have been approximately nine times lower.

Although this is a mathematical model, it adds to the growing evidence that supports the benefits of masks. Masks are among the best strategies for treating SARS-CoV-2. This conclusion has been supported by several systematic reviews and additional statistical studies. Conversely, the decision to relax and eliminate mask regulations has had consequences that have received little attention.

As expected, removing the mask mandate leads to increased virus transmission, resulting in more hospitalizations and deaths. A 2024 study estimated that in Japan, where cultural factors lead to much higher mask use in public than in Europe, the decline in mask use from 97% of the population in 2022 to 63% in October 2023 may have caused an additional 3500 deaths.

 

Impact Beyond SARS-CoV-2

One remarkable effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic was the probable extinction of an entire influenza strain (B/Yamagata), which could improve future influenza vaccines and significantly reduce the spread of respiratory syncytial virus. While this was not solely caused by masks, it was also influenced by emergency measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These behavioral changes can positively alter the landscape of infectious diseases.

Masks play a role in reducing influenza transmission during pandemics. Their effectiveness has been supported by several studies and systematic reviews on a wide range of respiratory viruses. A randomized clinical trial involving 4647 Norwegian participants from February to April 2023, published in May 2024 by the British Medical Journal, suggested that wearing a mask reduces the incidence of respiratory symptoms. Specifically, 8.9% of those who wore masks reported respiratory symptoms during the study period compared with 12.2% of those who did not, representing a relative risk reduction of 27%.

Widespread mask use could also protect against other factors such as fine particulate matter, indirectly reducing the risk for various health conditions. A retrospective study involving 7.8 million residents in the Chinese city of Weifang, published in December 2024 by BMC Public Health, suggested that mask use during the pandemic may have also protected the population from pollution, reducing the number of stroke cases by 38.6% over 33 months of follow-up.

Although there are still voices in bioethics calling for the reintroduction of mask mandates in public places, it is unlikely that, barring emergencies, mask mandates are politically and socially acceptable today. Mask use is also considered a politically polarizing topic in several Western countries. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether, as we move away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can more objectively promote the use of masks in public places.

Communicating the importance of public health initiatives and persuading people to support them is a well-known challenge. However, scientific literature offers valuable insights. These include encouraging people to rely on rational thinking rather than emotions and providing information on how masks protect those around them. The fact that East Asian cultures tend to have a more positive relationship with the use of masks shows that, in principle, it is possible to make them acceptable. Data from studies suggest that, as we prepare for potential future pandemics, it may be time to move past polarization and reintroduce masks — not as a universal mandate but as an individual choice for many.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 survivors show a more pronounced decline in kidney function than those who recover from pneumonia caused by other infections. This decline in kidney function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), is particularly steep among individuals who require hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been associated with acute kidney injury, but its potential impact on long-term kidney function remains unclear.
• Researchers investigated the decline in kidney function after COVID-19 vs pneumonia by including all hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements Project who had at least one eGFR measurement in the 2 years before a positive COVID-19 test result or pneumonia diagnosis.
• Overall, 134,565 individuals (median age, 51 years; 55.6% women) who had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 2020 and January 2022 were included, of whom 13.3% required hospitalization within 28 days of their first positive COVID-19 test result.
• They were compared with 35,987 patients (median age, 71 years; 53.8% women) who were diagnosed with pneumonia between February 2018 and January 2020; 46.5% of them required hospitalization.
• The primary outcome measure focused on the mean annual change in eGFR slopes before and after each infection; the secondary outcome assessed was the annual change in postinfection eGFR slopes between COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Before COVID-19, eGFR changes were minimal, but after the infection, the average decline increased to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.8-4.4) mL/min/1.73 m²; however, in the pneumonia cohort, a decline in eGFR was noted both before and after the infection.
• After COVID-19, the mean annual decline in eGFR was 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%), increasing to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) for those who were hospitalized.
• In contrast, the pneumonia group experienced an average annual decline of 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%) after the infection, which remained unchanged when analyzing only patients who were hospitalized.
• The risk for a 25% reduction in eGFR was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those with pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with the risk being even higher among those who required hospitalization (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings help inform decisions regarding the need to monitor kidney function in survivors of COVID-19 and could have implications for policymakers regarding future healthcare planning and kidney service provision,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Viyaasan Mahalingasivam, MPhil, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked information on important confounders such as ethnicity and body mass index. The follow-up period was not long enough to fully evaluate the long-term association of COVID-19 with kidney function. Some individuals may have been misclassified as nonhospitalized if their first infection was mild and a subsequent infection required hospitalization.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, and the Swedish Research Council. One author reported receiving a Career Development Award from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and another author reported receiving grants from Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Region Stockholm during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 survivors show a more pronounced decline in kidney function than those who recover from pneumonia caused by other infections. This decline in kidney function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), is particularly steep among individuals who require hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been associated with acute kidney injury, but its potential impact on long-term kidney function remains unclear.
• Researchers investigated the decline in kidney function after COVID-19 vs pneumonia by including all hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements Project who had at least one eGFR measurement in the 2 years before a positive COVID-19 test result or pneumonia diagnosis.
• Overall, 134,565 individuals (median age, 51 years; 55.6% women) who had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 2020 and January 2022 were included, of whom 13.3% required hospitalization within 28 days of their first positive COVID-19 test result.
• They were compared with 35,987 patients (median age, 71 years; 53.8% women) who were diagnosed with pneumonia between February 2018 and January 2020; 46.5% of them required hospitalization.
• The primary outcome measure focused on the mean annual change in eGFR slopes before and after each infection; the secondary outcome assessed was the annual change in postinfection eGFR slopes between COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Before COVID-19, eGFR changes were minimal, but after the infection, the average decline increased to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.8-4.4) mL/min/1.73 m²; however, in the pneumonia cohort, a decline in eGFR was noted both before and after the infection.
• After COVID-19, the mean annual decline in eGFR was 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%), increasing to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) for those who were hospitalized.
• In contrast, the pneumonia group experienced an average annual decline of 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%) after the infection, which remained unchanged when analyzing only patients who were hospitalized.
• The risk for a 25% reduction in eGFR was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those with pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with the risk being even higher among those who required hospitalization (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings help inform decisions regarding the need to monitor kidney function in survivors of COVID-19 and could have implications for policymakers regarding future healthcare planning and kidney service provision,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Viyaasan Mahalingasivam, MPhil, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked information on important confounders such as ethnicity and body mass index. The follow-up period was not long enough to fully evaluate the long-term association of COVID-19 with kidney function. Some individuals may have been misclassified as nonhospitalized if their first infection was mild and a subsequent infection required hospitalization.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, and the Swedish Research Council. One author reported receiving a Career Development Award from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and another author reported receiving grants from Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Region Stockholm during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 survivors show a more pronounced decline in kidney function than those who recover from pneumonia caused by other infections. This decline in kidney function, measured by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), is particularly steep among individuals who require hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has been associated with acute kidney injury, but its potential impact on long-term kidney function remains unclear.
• Researchers investigated the decline in kidney function after COVID-19 vs pneumonia by including all hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults from the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements Project who had at least one eGFR measurement in the 2 years before a positive COVID-19 test result or pneumonia diagnosis.
• Overall, 134,565 individuals (median age, 51 years; 55.6% women) who had their first SARS-CoV-2 infection between February 2020 and January 2022 were included, of whom 13.3% required hospitalization within 28 days of their first positive COVID-19 test result.
• They were compared with 35,987 patients (median age, 71 years; 53.8% women) who were diagnosed with pneumonia between February 2018 and January 2020; 46.5% of them required hospitalization.
• The primary outcome measure focused on the mean annual change in eGFR slopes before and after each infection; the secondary outcome assessed was the annual change in postinfection eGFR slopes between COVID-19 and pneumonia cases.

TAKEAWAY:

• Before COVID-19, eGFR changes were minimal, but after the infection, the average decline increased to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.8-4.4) mL/min/1.73 m²; however, in the pneumonia cohort, a decline in eGFR was noted both before and after the infection.
• After COVID-19, the mean annual decline in eGFR was 3.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.5%), increasing to 5.4% (95% CI, 5.2%-5.6%) for those who were hospitalized.
• In contrast, the pneumonia group experienced an average annual decline of 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%) after the infection, which remained unchanged when analyzing only patients who were hospitalized.
• The risk for a 25% reduction in eGFR was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in those with pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34), with the risk being even higher among those who required hospitalization (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings help inform decisions regarding the need to monitor kidney function in survivors of COVID-19 and could have implications for policymakers regarding future healthcare planning and kidney service provision,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Viyaasan Mahalingasivam, MPhil, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked information on important confounders such as ethnicity and body mass index. The follow-up period was not long enough to fully evaluate the long-term association of COVID-19 with kidney function. Some individuals may have been misclassified as nonhospitalized if their first infection was mild and a subsequent infection required hospitalization.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, and the Swedish Research Council. One author reported receiving a Career Development Award from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and another author reported receiving grants from Njurfonden, Stig and Gunborg Westman Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Region Stockholm during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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