COVID-19 Updates

A real-world study published in  JAMA Open Network found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid is now less effective at preventing hospitalization or death in high-risk patients, compared with earlier studies. But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective. 

Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.

The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.

For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg. 

The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported. 

The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.

“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”

Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.

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

A real-world study published in  JAMA Open Network found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid is now less effective at preventing hospitalization or death in high-risk patients, compared with earlier studies. But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective. 

Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.

The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.

For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg. 

The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported. 

The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.

“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”

Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.

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

A real-world study published in  JAMA Open Network found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid is now less effective at preventing hospitalization or death in high-risk patients, compared with earlier studies. But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective. 

Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.

The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.

For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg. 

The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported. 

The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.

“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”

Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.

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

Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .

“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
 

Significant reductions in symptoms

Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.

At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.

Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.

Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).

Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.

“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
 

Unanswered questions

Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.

“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”

Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).

“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”

Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.

She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.

Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.

“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.

That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
 

No major side effects

No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.

Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).

Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.

The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.

Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
 

Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .

“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
 

Significant reductions in symptoms

Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.

At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.

Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.

Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).

Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.

“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
 

Unanswered questions

Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.

“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”

Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).

“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”

Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.

She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.

Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.

“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.

That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
 

No major side effects

No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.

Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).

Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.

The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.

Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
 

Taking creatine as a supplement for 6 months appears to significantly improve clinical features of post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome (PVFS or long COVID), a small randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jelena Slankamenac, with Applied Bioenergetics Lab, Faculty of Sport and PE, University of Novi Sad, Serbia, published their findings in Food, Science & Nutrition .

“This is the first human study known to the authors that evaluated the efficacy and safety of supplemental creatine for fatigue, tissue bioenergetics, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

They say the findings may be attributed to creatine’s “energy-replenishing and neuroprotective activity.”
 

Significant reductions in symptoms

Researchers randomized the 12 participants into two groups of 6 each. The creatine group received 4 g creatine monohydrate per day, while the placebo group received the same amount of inulin.

At 3 months, dietary creatine supplements produced a significant reduction in fatigue, compared with baseline values ( P = .04) and significantly improved scores for several long COVID–related symptoms, including loss of taste, breathing difficulties, body aches, headache, and difficulties concentrating) ( P < .05), the researchers report.

Intervention effect sizes were assessed by Cohen statistics, with a d of at least 0.8 indicating a large effect.

Among highlights of the results were that patients reported a significant 77.8% drop in scores for concentration difficulties at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 1.19) and no concentration difficulties at the 6-month follow-up (Cohen’s effect, d = 2.46).

Total creatine levels increased in several locations across the brain (as much as 33% for right parietal white matter). No changes in tissue creatine levels were found in the placebo group during the trial.

“Since PVFS is characterized by impaired tissue bioenergetics ..., supplemental creatine might be an effective dietary intervention to uphold brain creatine in post–COVID-19 fatigue syndrome,” the authors write.

The authors add that creatine supplements for long COVID patients could benefit organs beyond the brain as participants saw “a significant drop in lung and body pain after the intervention.”
 

Unanswered questions

Some experts said the results should be interpreted with caution.

“This research paper is very interesting,” says Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at University of California, Los Angeles, “but the limited number of patients makes the results difficult to generalize.”

Dr. Viswanathan, who was not part of the study, pointed out that the patients included in this study had a recent COVID infection (under 3 months).

“Acute COVID infection can take up to 3 months to resolve,” she says. “We define patients with long COVID as those with symptoms lasting greater than 3 months. Therefore, these patients could have had improvements in their fatigue due to the natural course of the illness rather than creatine supplementation.”

Alba Azola, MD, assistant professor in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said she also was troubled by the window of 3 months for recent COVID infection.

She said she would like to see results for patients who have ongoing symptoms for at least 6 months after infection, especially given creatine supplements’ history in research.

Creatine supplements for other conditions, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, have been tested for nearly 2 decades, she pointed out, with conflicting findings, something the authors acknowledge in the paper.

“I think it’s premature to say (creatine) is the key,” she says. She added that the small sample size is important to consider given the heterogeneity of patients with long COVID.

That said, Dr. Azola says, she applauds all efforts to find treatments for long COVID, especially randomized, controlled studies like this one.
 

No major side effects

No major side effects were reported for either intervention, except for transient mild nausea reported by one patient after taking creatine.

Compliance with the intervention was 90.6% ± 3.5% in the creatine group and 95.3% ± 5.0% in the control group (P = .04).

Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were 18-65 years old, had a positive COVID test within the last 3 months (documented by a valid polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or antigen test performed in a COVID-19–certified lab); had moderate to severe fatigue; and at least one additional COVID-related symptom, including loss of taste or smell, breathing trouble, lung pain, body aches, headaches, or difficulties concentrating.

The authors acknowledge that they selected a sample of young to middle-aged adults experiencing moderate long COVID symptoms, and it’s unknown whether creatine is equally effective in other PVFS populations, such as elderly people, children, or patients with less or more severe disease.

Senior author Dr. Sergei Ostojic serves as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board on creatine in health and medicine (AlzChem LLC). He co-owns a patent for “Supplements Based on Liquid Creatine” at the European Patent Office. He has received research support related to creatine during the past 36 months from the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development; Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research; Alzchem GmbH; ThermoLife International; and Hueston Hennigan LLP. He does not own stocks and shares in any organization. Other authors declare no known relevant financial interests. Dr. Viswanathan and Dr. Azola report no relevant financial relationships.
 

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster vaccine typically causes transient, clinically insignificant elevations in glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, but some individuals may develop more pronounced hyperglycemia.

METHODOLOGY:

• In a single-center prospective cohort study of 21 adults with type 1 diabetes, patients were given a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitor (CGM) at the first research clinic visit.
• After 3-4 days, participants received a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
• They returned to the clinic 10 days after the initial visit (5-6 days after booster vaccination) to have the CGM removed and glycemia assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with baseline, the mean daily glucose level was significantly increased at day 2 (162.9 mg/dL vs. 172.8 mg/dL; P = .04) and day 3 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .02) post vaccination.
• Glucose excursions at day 0 (173.2 mg/dL; P = .058) and day 1 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .078) didn’t quite reach statistical significance.
• One participant experienced increases in glucose of 36%, 69%, 35%, 26%, 22%, and 19% on days 0-5, respectively, compared with baseline.
• Glucose excursions of at least 25% above baseline occurred in four participants on day 0 and day 1 and in three participants on days 2 and 5.
• Insulin resistance, as measured by Total Daily Insulin Resistance (a metric that integrates daily mean glucose concentration with total daily insulin dose), was also significantly increased from baseline to day 2 post vaccination (7,171 mg/dL vs. 8,070 mg/dL units; P = .03).
• No other measures of glycemia differed significantly, compared with baseline.
• Outcomes didn’t differ significantly by sex, age, or vaccine manufacturer.

IN PRACTICE:

• “To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effect of the COVID-19 booster vaccine on glycemia specifically in people with type 1 diabetes,” say the authors.
• “Clinicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers may need to counsel people with T1D to be more vigilant with glucose testing and insulin dosing for the first 5 days after vaccination. Most importantly, insulin, required to control glycemia, may need to be transiently increased.”
• “Further studies are warranted to investigate whether other vaccines have similar glycemic effects, and which individuals are at highest risk for profound glucose perturbations post vaccination.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mihail Zilbermint, MD, of the division of hospital medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues. It was published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

• The sample size was small.
• There were no measurements of inflammatory markers, dietary intake, physical activity, or survey patient symptomatology to adjust for variables that may have influenced glycemic control.
• In the study cohort, glycemia was moderately well controlled at baseline.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated study grant from DexCom Inc. Dr. Zilbermint has consulted for EMD Serono.

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

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster vaccine typically causes transient, clinically insignificant elevations in glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, but some individuals may develop more pronounced hyperglycemia.

METHODOLOGY:

• In a single-center prospective cohort study of 21 adults with type 1 diabetes, patients were given a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitor (CGM) at the first research clinic visit.
• After 3-4 days, participants received a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
• They returned to the clinic 10 days after the initial visit (5-6 days after booster vaccination) to have the CGM removed and glycemia assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with baseline, the mean daily glucose level was significantly increased at day 2 (162.9 mg/dL vs. 172.8 mg/dL; P = .04) and day 3 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .02) post vaccination.
• Glucose excursions at day 0 (173.2 mg/dL; P = .058) and day 1 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .078) didn’t quite reach statistical significance.
• One participant experienced increases in glucose of 36%, 69%, 35%, 26%, 22%, and 19% on days 0-5, respectively, compared with baseline.
• Glucose excursions of at least 25% above baseline occurred in four participants on day 0 and day 1 and in three participants on days 2 and 5.
• Insulin resistance, as measured by Total Daily Insulin Resistance (a metric that integrates daily mean glucose concentration with total daily insulin dose), was also significantly increased from baseline to day 2 post vaccination (7,171 mg/dL vs. 8,070 mg/dL units; P = .03).
• No other measures of glycemia differed significantly, compared with baseline.
• Outcomes didn’t differ significantly by sex, age, or vaccine manufacturer.

IN PRACTICE:

• “To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effect of the COVID-19 booster vaccine on glycemia specifically in people with type 1 diabetes,” say the authors.
• “Clinicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers may need to counsel people with T1D to be more vigilant with glucose testing and insulin dosing for the first 5 days after vaccination. Most importantly, insulin, required to control glycemia, may need to be transiently increased.”
• “Further studies are warranted to investigate whether other vaccines have similar glycemic effects, and which individuals are at highest risk for profound glucose perturbations post vaccination.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mihail Zilbermint, MD, of the division of hospital medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues. It was published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

• The sample size was small.
• There were no measurements of inflammatory markers, dietary intake, physical activity, or survey patient symptomatology to adjust for variables that may have influenced glycemic control.
• In the study cohort, glycemia was moderately well controlled at baseline.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated study grant from DexCom Inc. Dr. Zilbermint has consulted for EMD Serono.

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

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster vaccine typically causes transient, clinically insignificant elevations in glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, but some individuals may develop more pronounced hyperglycemia.

METHODOLOGY:

• In a single-center prospective cohort study of 21 adults with type 1 diabetes, patients were given a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitor (CGM) at the first research clinic visit.
• After 3-4 days, participants received a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
• They returned to the clinic 10 days after the initial visit (5-6 days after booster vaccination) to have the CGM removed and glycemia assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with baseline, the mean daily glucose level was significantly increased at day 2 (162.9 mg/dL vs. 172.8 mg/dL; P = .04) and day 3 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .02) post vaccination.
• Glucose excursions at day 0 (173.2 mg/dL; P = .058) and day 1 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .078) didn’t quite reach statistical significance.
• One participant experienced increases in glucose of 36%, 69%, 35%, 26%, 22%, and 19% on days 0-5, respectively, compared with baseline.
• Glucose excursions of at least 25% above baseline occurred in four participants on day 0 and day 1 and in three participants on days 2 and 5.
• Insulin resistance, as measured by Total Daily Insulin Resistance (a metric that integrates daily mean glucose concentration with total daily insulin dose), was also significantly increased from baseline to day 2 post vaccination (7,171 mg/dL vs. 8,070 mg/dL units; P = .03).
• No other measures of glycemia differed significantly, compared with baseline.
• Outcomes didn’t differ significantly by sex, age, or vaccine manufacturer.

IN PRACTICE:

• “To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effect of the COVID-19 booster vaccine on glycemia specifically in people with type 1 diabetes,” say the authors.
• “Clinicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers may need to counsel people with T1D to be more vigilant with glucose testing and insulin dosing for the first 5 days after vaccination. Most importantly, insulin, required to control glycemia, may need to be transiently increased.”
• “Further studies are warranted to investigate whether other vaccines have similar glycemic effects, and which individuals are at highest risk for profound glucose perturbations post vaccination.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mihail Zilbermint, MD, of the division of hospital medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues. It was published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

• The sample size was small.
• There were no measurements of inflammatory markers, dietary intake, physical activity, or survey patient symptomatology to adjust for variables that may have influenced glycemic control.
• In the study cohort, glycemia was moderately well controlled at baseline.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated study grant from DexCom Inc. Dr. Zilbermint has consulted for EMD Serono.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Moderna says its upcoming COVID-19 vaccine should work against the BA.2.86 variant that has caused worry about a possible surge in cases.

“The company said its shot generated an 8.7-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies in humans against BA.2.86, which is being tracked by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Reuters reported.

“We think this is news people will want to hear as they prepare to go out and get their fall boosters,” Jacqueline Miller, Moderna head of infectious diseases, told the news agency.

The CDC said that the BA.2.86 variant might be more likely to infect people who have already had COVID or previous vaccinations. BA.2.86 is an Omicron variant. It has undergone more mutations than XBB.1.5, which has dominated most of this year and was the intended target of the updated shots.

BA.2.86 does not have a strong presence in the United States yet. However, officials are concerned about its high number of mutations, NBC News reported.

The FDA is expected to approve the new Moderna shot by early October.

Pfizer told NBC that its updated booster also generated a strong antibody response against Omicron variants, including BA.2.86.

COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have been increasing in the U.S. because of the rise of several variants. 

Experts told Reuters that BA.2.86 probably won’t cause a wave of severe disease and death because immunity has been built up around the world through previous infections and mass vaccinations.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Intense throbbing, sensitivity to light and sound, nausea: These were the symptoms Nathan Solomon experienced during his first-ever migraine about a month after receiving a diagnosis of long COVID.

“I’ve also noticed visual disturbances, like flickering lights or blurred vision, which I later learned are called auras,” the 30-year-old medical billing specialist in Seattle told this news organization.

Mr. Solomon isn’t alone. It’s estimated that 1 out of 8 people with COVID develop long COVID. Of those persons, 44% also experience headaches. Research has found that many of those headaches are migraines – and many patients who are afflicted say they had never had a migraine before. These migraines tend to persist for at least 5 or 6 months, according to data from the American Headache Society.

What’s more, other patients may suddenly have more frequent or intense versions of headaches they’ve not noticed before.

The mechanism as to how long COVID could manifest migraines is not yet fully understood, but many doctors believe that inflammation caused by the virus plays a key role.

“To understand why some patients have migraine in long COVID, we have to go back to understand the role of inflammation in COVID-19 itself,” says Emad Estemalik, MD, clinical assistant professor of neurology at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and section head of headache medicine at Cleveland Clinic.

In COVID-19, inflammation occurs because of a cytokine storm. Cytokines, which are proteins essential for a strong immune system, can be overproduced in a patient with COVID, which causes too much inflammation in any organ in the body, including the brain. This can result in new daily headache for some patients.

A new study from Italian researchers found that many patients who develop migraines for the first time while ill with long COVID are middle-aged women (traditionally a late point in life for a first migraine) who have a family history of migraine. Potential causes could have to do with the immune system remaining persistently activated from inflammation during long COVID, as well as the activation of the trigeminovascular system in the brain, which contains neurons that can trigger a migraine.

What treatments can work for migraines related to long COVID?

Long COVID usually causes a constellation of other symptoms at the same time as migraine.

“It’s so important for patients to take an interdisciplinary approach,” Dr. Estemalik stresses. “Patients should make sure their doctors are addressing all of their symptoms.”

When it comes to specifically targeting migraines, standard treatments can be effective.

“In terms of treating migraine in long COVID patients, we don’t do anything different or special,” says Matthew E. Fink, MD, chair of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College and chief of the Division of Stroke and Critical Care Neurology at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “We treat these patients with standard migraine medications.”

Mr. Solomon is following this course of action.

“My doctor prescribed triptans, which have been somewhat effective in reducing the severity and duration of the migraines,” he says. A daily supplement of magnesium and a daily dose of aspirin can also work for some patients, according to Dr. Fink.

Lifestyle modification is also a great idea.

“Patients should keep regular sleep hours, getting up and going to bed at the same time every day,” Dr. Fink continues. “Daily exercise is also recommended.”

Mr. Solomon suggests tracking migraine triggers and patterns in a journal.

“Try to identify lifestyle changes that help, like managing stress and staying hydrated,” Mr. Solomon advises. “Seeking support from health care professionals and support groups can make a significant difference.”

The best news of all: for patients that are diligent in following these strategies, they’ve been proven to work.

“We doctors are very optimistic when it comes to good outcomes for patients with long COVID and migraine,” Dr. Fink says. “I reassure my patients by telling them, ‘You will get better long-term.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense throbbing, sensitivity to light and sound, nausea: These were the symptoms Nathan Solomon experienced during his first-ever migraine about a month after receiving a diagnosis of long COVID.

“I’ve also noticed visual disturbances, like flickering lights or blurred vision, which I later learned are called auras,” the 30-year-old medical billing specialist in Seattle told this news organization.

Mr. Solomon isn’t alone. It’s estimated that 1 out of 8 people with COVID develop long COVID. Of those persons, 44% also experience headaches. Research has found that many of those headaches are migraines – and many patients who are afflicted say they had never had a migraine before. These migraines tend to persist for at least 5 or 6 months, according to data from the American Headache Society.

What’s more, other patients may suddenly have more frequent or intense versions of headaches they’ve not noticed before.

The mechanism as to how long COVID could manifest migraines is not yet fully understood, but many doctors believe that inflammation caused by the virus plays a key role.

“To understand why some patients have migraine in long COVID, we have to go back to understand the role of inflammation in COVID-19 itself,” says Emad Estemalik, MD, clinical assistant professor of neurology at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and section head of headache medicine at Cleveland Clinic.

In COVID-19, inflammation occurs because of a cytokine storm. Cytokines, which are proteins essential for a strong immune system, can be overproduced in a patient with COVID, which causes too much inflammation in any organ in the body, including the brain. This can result in new daily headache for some patients.

A new study from Italian researchers found that many patients who develop migraines for the first time while ill with long COVID are middle-aged women (traditionally a late point in life for a first migraine) who have a family history of migraine. Potential causes could have to do with the immune system remaining persistently activated from inflammation during long COVID, as well as the activation of the trigeminovascular system in the brain, which contains neurons that can trigger a migraine.

What treatments can work for migraines related to long COVID?

Long COVID usually causes a constellation of other symptoms at the same time as migraine.

“It’s so important for patients to take an interdisciplinary approach,” Dr. Estemalik stresses. “Patients should make sure their doctors are addressing all of their symptoms.”

When it comes to specifically targeting migraines, standard treatments can be effective.

“In terms of treating migraine in long COVID patients, we don’t do anything different or special,” says Matthew E. Fink, MD, chair of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College and chief of the Division of Stroke and Critical Care Neurology at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “We treat these patients with standard migraine medications.”

Mr. Solomon is following this course of action.

“My doctor prescribed triptans, which have been somewhat effective in reducing the severity and duration of the migraines,” he says. A daily supplement of magnesium and a daily dose of aspirin can also work for some patients, according to Dr. Fink.

Lifestyle modification is also a great idea.

“Patients should keep regular sleep hours, getting up and going to bed at the same time every day,” Dr. Fink continues. “Daily exercise is also recommended.”

Mr. Solomon suggests tracking migraine triggers and patterns in a journal.

“Try to identify lifestyle changes that help, like managing stress and staying hydrated,” Mr. Solomon advises. “Seeking support from health care professionals and support groups can make a significant difference.”

The best news of all: for patients that are diligent in following these strategies, they’ve been proven to work.

“We doctors are very optimistic when it comes to good outcomes for patients with long COVID and migraine,” Dr. Fink says. “I reassure my patients by telling them, ‘You will get better long-term.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense throbbing, sensitivity to light and sound, nausea: These were the symptoms Nathan Solomon experienced during his first-ever migraine about a month after receiving a diagnosis of long COVID.

“I’ve also noticed visual disturbances, like flickering lights or blurred vision, which I later learned are called auras,” the 30-year-old medical billing specialist in Seattle told this news organization.

Mr. Solomon isn’t alone. It’s estimated that 1 out of 8 people with COVID develop long COVID. Of those persons, 44% also experience headaches. Research has found that many of those headaches are migraines – and many patients who are afflicted say they had never had a migraine before. These migraines tend to persist for at least 5 or 6 months, according to data from the American Headache Society.

What’s more, other patients may suddenly have more frequent or intense versions of headaches they’ve not noticed before.

The mechanism as to how long COVID could manifest migraines is not yet fully understood, but many doctors believe that inflammation caused by the virus plays a key role.

“To understand why some patients have migraine in long COVID, we have to go back to understand the role of inflammation in COVID-19 itself,” says Emad Estemalik, MD, clinical assistant professor of neurology at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine and section head of headache medicine at Cleveland Clinic.

In COVID-19, inflammation occurs because of a cytokine storm. Cytokines, which are proteins essential for a strong immune system, can be overproduced in a patient with COVID, which causes too much inflammation in any organ in the body, including the brain. This can result in new daily headache for some patients.

A new study from Italian researchers found that many patients who develop migraines for the first time while ill with long COVID are middle-aged women (traditionally a late point in life for a first migraine) who have a family history of migraine. Potential causes could have to do with the immune system remaining persistently activated from inflammation during long COVID, as well as the activation of the trigeminovascular system in the brain, which contains neurons that can trigger a migraine.

What treatments can work for migraines related to long COVID?

Long COVID usually causes a constellation of other symptoms at the same time as migraine.

“It’s so important for patients to take an interdisciplinary approach,” Dr. Estemalik stresses. “Patients should make sure their doctors are addressing all of their symptoms.”

When it comes to specifically targeting migraines, standard treatments can be effective.

“In terms of treating migraine in long COVID patients, we don’t do anything different or special,” says Matthew E. Fink, MD, chair of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College and chief of the Division of Stroke and Critical Care Neurology at New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. “We treat these patients with standard migraine medications.”

Mr. Solomon is following this course of action.

“My doctor prescribed triptans, which have been somewhat effective in reducing the severity and duration of the migraines,” he says. A daily supplement of magnesium and a daily dose of aspirin can also work for some patients, according to Dr. Fink.

Lifestyle modification is also a great idea.

“Patients should keep regular sleep hours, getting up and going to bed at the same time every day,” Dr. Fink continues. “Daily exercise is also recommended.”

Mr. Solomon suggests tracking migraine triggers and patterns in a journal.

“Try to identify lifestyle changes that help, like managing stress and staying hydrated,” Mr. Solomon advises. “Seeking support from health care professionals and support groups can make a significant difference.”

The best news of all: for patients that are diligent in following these strategies, they’ve been proven to work.

“We doctors are very optimistic when it comes to good outcomes for patients with long COVID and migraine,” Dr. Fink says. “I reassure my patients by telling them, ‘You will get better long-term.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

COVID-19 infection has resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. India has the third highest mortality from COVID-19 infection after the United States and Brazil.¹ Vaccination plays a crucial role in containing COVID-19 infection and reducing its severity. At present, 11 vaccines have been approved by the World Health Organization. India started its vaccination program on January 16, 2021, with approval for use of Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) and Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation)(Serum Institute of India). More than 2 billion doses have been administered since then.^2,3

Patients with psoriasis are prone to develop a severe form of COVID-19 due to comorbidities and the intake of immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ These patients often are hesitant to receive the vaccine without an expert opinion. COVID-19 vaccines are considered to increase tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IFN-γ production by CD4⁺ T cells. Tumor necrosis factor α is a key proinflammatory cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines induce elevation of IL-6 and helper T cells (T_H17), which can induce a flare of psoriasis in a subset of patients.⁵The International Psoriasis Council recommends that patients with psoriasis receive one of the vaccines approved to prevent COVID-19 infection as soon as possible.⁶ Reports of new-onset psoriasis and flare of psoriasis after the use of COVID-19 vaccines, such as those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, have been published from different parts of the world.⁷ India used locally developed whole virion inactivated BBV152 (Covaxin) and nonreplicating viral vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield) in its vaccination program and exported them to other developing countries. There is a dearth of data on the safety of these vaccines in patients with psoriasis, which needs to be assessed. Later, Covaxin, ZyCoV-D (DNA plasmid vaccine; Cadila Healthcare), and CorbeVax (protein subunit vaccine; Biological E) were approved for usage in children.⁸ We conducted a cross-sectional study using the direct interview method.

Patients with psoriasis who attended the outpatient department of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh, India) from April 2022 to June 2022 were invited to participate in the study after written informed consent was received. Patients 18 years and older with chronic plaque psoriasis who had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the last 90 days were enrolled. Data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment received for psoriasis, vaccination concerns, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received with doses, adverse effects, and psoriasis flare after receiving the vaccine (considered up to 2 weeks from the date of vaccination) were collected. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a psoriasis flare following vaccination. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 202 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either Covaxin or Covishield were enrolled during the study period. The mean age (SD) was 40.3 (13.1) years, and 149 (73.8%) patients were male. One hundred thirty-five (66.8%) patients completed 2 doses of the vaccine. eTable 1 provides the clinicodemographic details of the patients. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients had a fear of psoriasis flare after vaccination. Seventy-two (35.6%) patients received the vaccine after clearance from their treating physician/dermatologist. One hundred sixty-four (81.2%) patients received the Covishield vaccine, and 38 (18.8%) patients received Covaxin. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients reported flulike symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, or body pain, within the first week of vaccination. Sixty-one (30.2%) patients reported a psoriasis flare after vaccination in the form of new lesions or worsening of pre-existing lesions. Of these patients, 51 reported a flare after receiving the first dose of vaccine, 8 patients reported a flare after receiving the second dose of vaccine, and 2 patients reported a flare after receiving both doses of vaccine. The mean (SD) flare onset was 8.1 (3.4) days after the vaccination. Eighteen patients considered the flare to be severe. Seventeen (8.4%) patients reported a positive history of COVID-19 infection before vaccination. None of the patients reported breakthrough COVID-19 infection or pustular aggravation of psoriasis following the vaccination.

The self-reported psoriasis flare after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in patients who experienced immediate adverse effects (P=.005), which included fever, myalgia, joint pain, and injection-site reaction. The reported postvaccination psoriasis flare was not significantly associated with patient sex, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received, comorbidities, or therapy for psoriasis (eTable 2).

Nearly 30% of our patients reported a postvaccination psoriasis flare, which was more common after the first vaccine dose. Sotiriou et al⁷ reported 14 cases of psoriasis flare in patients after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. These patients experienced an exacerbation of disease soon after the second dose of vaccine (mean [SD], 10.36 [7.71] days), and 21% of the 713 enrolled patients wanted to forego the immunization due to concern of a postvaccination psoriasis flare.⁷ In another report, 14 (27%) patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination; the mean (SD) flare onset was 9.3 (4.3) days after vaccination.⁹

Data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients using immunosuppressive drugs are limited. We did not find a significant association between the psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or type of vaccine received. Huang and Tsai⁹ observed similar results, with no association between psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or biologics, while Damiani et al¹⁰ demonstrated a protective role of biologics in preventing vaccine-induced psoriasis flare.

Similar to another study from India,¹¹ the immediate adverse effects due to immunization with Covaxin and Covishield were mild in our study and resolved within a week. The incidence of psoriasis flare was significantly higher in patients who reported adverse effects (P=.005). Activation of immune response after vaccination leads to the release of proinflammatory and pyrogenic cytokines (ie, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α), which may explain the higher incidence of psoriasis flare in patients experiencing adverse effects to vaccination.¹²

Our study showed approximately 30% of patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination, with no patients experiencing any vaccine-related serious adverse events, which suggests that Covaxin and Covishield are safe for patients with psoriasis in India. Limitations of our study include potential inaccuracy of the patient’s self-assessment of symptoms and disease flare, recall bias that may lead to errors in estimating patient-reported outcomes, the flare of psoriasis potentially being a part of disease fluctuation, and flare being enhanced by the psychological stress of vaccination.

Considering a high risk for severe COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis with comorbidities and those using immunosuppressive drugs, Covaxin and Covishield can be safely recommended in India. However, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating patients with an unstable disease or severe psoriasis.

To the Editor:

COVID-19 infection has resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. India has the third highest mortality from COVID-19 infection after the United States and Brazil.¹ Vaccination plays a crucial role in containing COVID-19 infection and reducing its severity. At present, 11 vaccines have been approved by the World Health Organization. India started its vaccination program on January 16, 2021, with approval for use of Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) and Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation)(Serum Institute of India). More than 2 billion doses have been administered since then.^2,3

Patients with psoriasis are prone to develop a severe form of COVID-19 due to comorbidities and the intake of immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ These patients often are hesitant to receive the vaccine without an expert opinion. COVID-19 vaccines are considered to increase tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IFN-γ production by CD4⁺ T cells. Tumor necrosis factor α is a key proinflammatory cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines induce elevation of IL-6 and helper T cells (T_H17), which can induce a flare of psoriasis in a subset of patients.⁵The International Psoriasis Council recommends that patients with psoriasis receive one of the vaccines approved to prevent COVID-19 infection as soon as possible.⁶ Reports of new-onset psoriasis and flare of psoriasis after the use of COVID-19 vaccines, such as those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, have been published from different parts of the world.⁷ India used locally developed whole virion inactivated BBV152 (Covaxin) and nonreplicating viral vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield) in its vaccination program and exported them to other developing countries. There is a dearth of data on the safety of these vaccines in patients with psoriasis, which needs to be assessed. Later, Covaxin, ZyCoV-D (DNA plasmid vaccine; Cadila Healthcare), and CorbeVax (protein subunit vaccine; Biological E) were approved for usage in children.⁸ We conducted a cross-sectional study using the direct interview method.

Patients with psoriasis who attended the outpatient department of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh, India) from April 2022 to June 2022 were invited to participate in the study after written informed consent was received. Patients 18 years and older with chronic plaque psoriasis who had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the last 90 days were enrolled. Data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment received for psoriasis, vaccination concerns, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received with doses, adverse effects, and psoriasis flare after receiving the vaccine (considered up to 2 weeks from the date of vaccination) were collected. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a psoriasis flare following vaccination. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 202 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either Covaxin or Covishield were enrolled during the study period. The mean age (SD) was 40.3 (13.1) years, and 149 (73.8%) patients were male. One hundred thirty-five (66.8%) patients completed 2 doses of the vaccine. eTable 1 provides the clinicodemographic details of the patients. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients had a fear of psoriasis flare after vaccination. Seventy-two (35.6%) patients received the vaccine after clearance from their treating physician/dermatologist. One hundred sixty-four (81.2%) patients received the Covishield vaccine, and 38 (18.8%) patients received Covaxin. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients reported flulike symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, or body pain, within the first week of vaccination. Sixty-one (30.2%) patients reported a psoriasis flare after vaccination in the form of new lesions or worsening of pre-existing lesions. Of these patients, 51 reported a flare after receiving the first dose of vaccine, 8 patients reported a flare after receiving the second dose of vaccine, and 2 patients reported a flare after receiving both doses of vaccine. The mean (SD) flare onset was 8.1 (3.4) days after the vaccination. Eighteen patients considered the flare to be severe. Seventeen (8.4%) patients reported a positive history of COVID-19 infection before vaccination. None of the patients reported breakthrough COVID-19 infection or pustular aggravation of psoriasis following the vaccination.

The self-reported psoriasis flare after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in patients who experienced immediate adverse effects (P=.005), which included fever, myalgia, joint pain, and injection-site reaction. The reported postvaccination psoriasis flare was not significantly associated with patient sex, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received, comorbidities, or therapy for psoriasis (eTable 2).

Nearly 30% of our patients reported a postvaccination psoriasis flare, which was more common after the first vaccine dose. Sotiriou et al⁷ reported 14 cases of psoriasis flare in patients after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. These patients experienced an exacerbation of disease soon after the second dose of vaccine (mean [SD], 10.36 [7.71] days), and 21% of the 713 enrolled patients wanted to forego the immunization due to concern of a postvaccination psoriasis flare.⁷ In another report, 14 (27%) patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination; the mean (SD) flare onset was 9.3 (4.3) days after vaccination.⁹

Data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients using immunosuppressive drugs are limited. We did not find a significant association between the psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or type of vaccine received. Huang and Tsai⁹ observed similar results, with no association between psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or biologics, while Damiani et al¹⁰ demonstrated a protective role of biologics in preventing vaccine-induced psoriasis flare.

Similar to another study from India,¹¹ the immediate adverse effects due to immunization with Covaxin and Covishield were mild in our study and resolved within a week. The incidence of psoriasis flare was significantly higher in patients who reported adverse effects (P=.005). Activation of immune response after vaccination leads to the release of proinflammatory and pyrogenic cytokines (ie, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α), which may explain the higher incidence of psoriasis flare in patients experiencing adverse effects to vaccination.¹²

Our study showed approximately 30% of patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination, with no patients experiencing any vaccine-related serious adverse events, which suggests that Covaxin and Covishield are safe for patients with psoriasis in India. Limitations of our study include potential inaccuracy of the patient’s self-assessment of symptoms and disease flare, recall bias that may lead to errors in estimating patient-reported outcomes, the flare of psoriasis potentially being a part of disease fluctuation, and flare being enhanced by the psychological stress of vaccination.

Considering a high risk for severe COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis with comorbidities and those using immunosuppressive drugs, Covaxin and Covishield can be safely recommended in India. However, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating patients with an unstable disease or severe psoriasis.

To the Editor:

COVID-19 infection has resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. India has the third highest mortality from COVID-19 infection after the United States and Brazil.¹ Vaccination plays a crucial role in containing COVID-19 infection and reducing its severity. At present, 11 vaccines have been approved by the World Health Organization. India started its vaccination program on January 16, 2021, with approval for use of Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) and Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation)(Serum Institute of India). More than 2 billion doses have been administered since then.^2,3

Patients with psoriasis are prone to develop a severe form of COVID-19 due to comorbidities and the intake of immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ These patients often are hesitant to receive the vaccine without an expert opinion. COVID-19 vaccines are considered to increase tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IFN-γ production by CD4⁺ T cells. Tumor necrosis factor α is a key proinflammatory cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines induce elevation of IL-6 and helper T cells (T_H17), which can induce a flare of psoriasis in a subset of patients.⁵The International Psoriasis Council recommends that patients with psoriasis receive one of the vaccines approved to prevent COVID-19 infection as soon as possible.⁶ Reports of new-onset psoriasis and flare of psoriasis after the use of COVID-19 vaccines, such as those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, have been published from different parts of the world.⁷ India used locally developed whole virion inactivated BBV152 (Covaxin) and nonreplicating viral vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield) in its vaccination program and exported them to other developing countries. There is a dearth of data on the safety of these vaccines in patients with psoriasis, which needs to be assessed. Later, Covaxin, ZyCoV-D (DNA plasmid vaccine; Cadila Healthcare), and CorbeVax (protein subunit vaccine; Biological E) were approved for usage in children.⁸ We conducted a cross-sectional study using the direct interview method.

Patients with psoriasis who attended the outpatient department of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh, India) from April 2022 to June 2022 were invited to participate in the study after written informed consent was received. Patients 18 years and older with chronic plaque psoriasis who had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the last 90 days were enrolled. Data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment received for psoriasis, vaccination concerns, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received with doses, adverse effects, and psoriasis flare after receiving the vaccine (considered up to 2 weeks from the date of vaccination) were collected. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a psoriasis flare following vaccination. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 202 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either Covaxin or Covishield were enrolled during the study period. The mean age (SD) was 40.3 (13.1) years, and 149 (73.8%) patients were male. One hundred thirty-five (66.8%) patients completed 2 doses of the vaccine. eTable 1 provides the clinicodemographic details of the patients. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients had a fear of psoriasis flare after vaccination. Seventy-two (35.6%) patients received the vaccine after clearance from their treating physician/dermatologist. One hundred sixty-four (81.2%) patients received the Covishield vaccine, and 38 (18.8%) patients received Covaxin. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients reported flulike symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, or body pain, within the first week of vaccination. Sixty-one (30.2%) patients reported a psoriasis flare after vaccination in the form of new lesions or worsening of pre-existing lesions. Of these patients, 51 reported a flare after receiving the first dose of vaccine, 8 patients reported a flare after receiving the second dose of vaccine, and 2 patients reported a flare after receiving both doses of vaccine. The mean (SD) flare onset was 8.1 (3.4) days after the vaccination. Eighteen patients considered the flare to be severe. Seventeen (8.4%) patients reported a positive history of COVID-19 infection before vaccination. None of the patients reported breakthrough COVID-19 infection or pustular aggravation of psoriasis following the vaccination.

The self-reported psoriasis flare after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in patients who experienced immediate adverse effects (P=.005), which included fever, myalgia, joint pain, and injection-site reaction. The reported postvaccination psoriasis flare was not significantly associated with patient sex, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received, comorbidities, or therapy for psoriasis (eTable 2).

Nearly 30% of our patients reported a postvaccination psoriasis flare, which was more common after the first vaccine dose. Sotiriou et al⁷ reported 14 cases of psoriasis flare in patients after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. These patients experienced an exacerbation of disease soon after the second dose of vaccine (mean [SD], 10.36 [7.71] days), and 21% of the 713 enrolled patients wanted to forego the immunization due to concern of a postvaccination psoriasis flare.⁷ In another report, 14 (27%) patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination; the mean (SD) flare onset was 9.3 (4.3) days after vaccination.⁹

Data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients using immunosuppressive drugs are limited. We did not find a significant association between the psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or type of vaccine received. Huang and Tsai⁹ observed similar results, with no association between psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or biologics, while Damiani et al¹⁰ demonstrated a protective role of biologics in preventing vaccine-induced psoriasis flare.

Similar to another study from India,¹¹ the immediate adverse effects due to immunization with Covaxin and Covishield were mild in our study and resolved within a week. The incidence of psoriasis flare was significantly higher in patients who reported adverse effects (P=.005). Activation of immune response after vaccination leads to the release of proinflammatory and pyrogenic cytokines (ie, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α), which may explain the higher incidence of psoriasis flare in patients experiencing adverse effects to vaccination.¹²

Our study showed approximately 30% of patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination, with no patients experiencing any vaccine-related serious adverse events, which suggests that Covaxin and Covishield are safe for patients with psoriasis in India. Limitations of our study include potential inaccuracy of the patient’s self-assessment of symptoms and disease flare, recall bias that may lead to errors in estimating patient-reported outcomes, the flare of psoriasis potentially being a part of disease fluctuation, and flare being enhanced by the psychological stress of vaccination.

Considering a high risk for severe COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis with comorbidities and those using immunosuppressive drugs, Covaxin and Covishield can be safely recommended in India. However, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating patients with an unstable disease or severe psoriasis.