COVID-19 Updates

Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.

The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.

Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.

“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.

However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.

He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”

“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
 

Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?

Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.

According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.

For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.

The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).

However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.

The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.

Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.

Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.

“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.

While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”

Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”

The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.

The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.

Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.

“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.

However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.

He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”

“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
 

Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?

Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.

According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.

For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.

The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).

However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.

The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.

Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.

Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.

“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.

While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”

Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”

The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Estrogen supplementation is associated with a reduced risk of death from COVID-19 among postmenopausal women, new research suggests.

The findings, from a nationwide study using data from Sweden, were published online Feb. 14 in BMJ Open by Malin Sund, MD, PhD, of Umeå (Sweden) University Faculty of Medicine and colleagues.

Among postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years with verified COVID-19, those receiving estrogen as part of hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms were less than half as likely to die from it as those not receiving estrogen, even after adjustment for confounders.

“This study shows an association between estrogen levels and COVID-19 death. Consequently, drugs increasing estrogen levels may have a role in therapeutic efforts to alleviate COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women and could be studied in randomized control trials,” the investigators write.

However, coauthor Anne-Marie Fors Connolly, MD, PhD, a resident in clinical microbiology at Umeå University, cautioned: “This is an observational study. Further clinical studies are needed to verify these results before recommending clinicians to consider estrogen supplementation.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, agrees.

He told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is an observational study comparing three groups of women based on whether they used hormonal therapy to boost estrogen levels or who had, as a result of treatment for breast cancer ... reduced estrogen levels or neither. The findings are apparently dramatic.”

“At the very least, great caution should be exercised in thinking that menopausal hormone therapy will have substantial, or even any, benefits in dealing with COVID-19,” he warned.
 

Do women die less frequently from COVID-19 than men?

Studies conducted early in the pandemic suggest women may be protected from poor outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with men, even after adjustment for confounders.

According to more recent data from the Swedish Public Health Agency, of the 16,501 people who have died from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, about 45% are women and 55% are men. About 70% who have received intensive care because of COVID-19 are men, although cumulative data suggest that women are nearly as likely to die from COVID-19 as men, Dr. Connolly told this news organization.

For the current study, a total of 14,685 women aged 50-80 years were included, of whom 17.3% (2,535) had received estrogen supplementation, 81.2% (11,923) had native estrogen levels with no breast cancer or estrogen supplementation (controls), and 1.5% (227) had decreased estrogen levels because of breast cancer and antiestrogen treatment.

The group with decreased estrogen levels had a more than twofold risk of dying from COVID-19 compared with controls (odds ratio, 2.35), but this difference was no longer significant after adjustments for potential confounders including age, income, and educational level, and weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (wCCI).

However, the group with augmented estrogen levels had a decreased risk of dying from COVID-19 before (odds ratio, 0.45) and after (OR, 0.47) adjustment.

The percentages of patients who died of COVID-19 were 4.6% of controls, 10.1% of those with decreased estrogen, and 2.1% with increased estrogen.

Not surprisingly, the risk of dying from COVID-19 also increased with age (OR of 1.15 for every year increase in age) and comorbidities (OR, 1.13 per increase in wCCI). Low income and having only a primary level education also increased the odds of dying from COVID-19.

Data on obesity, a known risk factor for COVID-19 death, weren’t reported.

“Obesity would have been a very relevant variable to include. Unfortunately, this information is not present in the nationwide registry data that we used for our study,” Dr. Connolly told this news organization.

While the data are observational and can’t be used to inform treatment, Dr. Connolly pointed to a U.S. randomized clinical trial currently recruiting patients that will investigate the effect of estradiol and progesterone therapy in 120 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

In the meantime, she warned doctors and patients: “Please do not consider ending antiestrogen treatment following breast cancer – this is a necessary treatment for the cancer.”

Dr. Evans noted, “There are short-term benefits of menopausal hormone therapy but women should not, based on this or other observational studies, be advised to take HRT [hormone replacement therapy] for a supposed benefit on death from COVID-19.”

The study had several nonpharmaceutical industry funders, including Umeå University and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Evans have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In mid-November, Kevin Billingsley, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., was keeping a close eye on the new COVID variant sweeping across South Africa. Six weeks later, the Omicron variant had become the dominant strain in the U.S. – and the Yale health system was no exception.

“As we entered January, we had a breathtaking rate of infection in our hospital,” said Dr. Billingsley, who also leads clinical care at the Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Some of the newly authorized COVID agents were available but not widely enough to make a clinically meaningful impact to protect all high-risk individuals during this surge.”

That left the team at Yale with difficult decisions about who would receive these treatments and who wouldn’t.

The health system convened a COVID-19 immunocompromised working group to identify which patients should get priority access to one of the promising drugs authorized to treat the infection – the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab and antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir – or the sole available option to prevent it, Evusheld.

“Although clinically sound, none of these decisions have been easy,” Dr. Billingsley told this news organization. “We have done a lot of case-by-case reviewing and a lot of handwringing. Omicron has been a wild ride for us all, and we have been doing the best we can with limited resources.”
 

‘We’re seeing incredible variability’

The team at Yale is not alone. The restricted supply of COVID-19 treatments has led many oncologists and other experts across the U.S. to create carefully curated lists of their most vulnerable patients.

In late December, the National Institutes of Health published broad criteria to help clinicians prioritize patients most likely to benefit from these therapies. A handful of state health departments, including those in Michigan and Minnesota, established their own standards. Patients with cancer – specifically those with hematologic malignancies and receiving oncology therapies that compromise the immune system – appeared at the top of everyone’s list.

But ultimately individual decisions about who receives these drugs and how they’re allocated fell to institutions.

“Overall, what we’re seeing is incredible variability across the country, because there’s no uniform agreement on what comprises best practices on allocating scarce resources,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “There are so many people at the top of most lists, and the drugs are in such short supply, that there’s no guarantee even those in the top tier will get it.”

This news organization spoke to experts across the country about their experiences accessing these treatments during the Omicron surge and their strategies prioritizing patients with cancer.
 

Dealing with limited supply

Overall, the limited supply of COVID-19 drugs means not every patient who’s eligible to receive a treatment will get one.

A snapshot of the past 2 weeks, for instance, shows that the count of new infections hit almost 4.3 million, while distribution of the two antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab reached just over 600,000 courses.

Since receiving emergency use authorization in early December, almost 500,000 courses of the pre-exposure prophylactic agent Evusheld – which offers about 6 months of protection for immunocompromised individuals – have been distributed; however, about 7 million adults in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it.

In addition, the distribution of drugs is uneven. The federal government manages the overall distribution to states, but states then decide how to divvy up these allocations to hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers. In Ohio, for instance, the antivirals go to providers who already receive monoclonal antibodies, while in Tennessee, the supply of antiviral agents only goes to Walmart pharmacies.

This strategy, Dr. Wynia explained, can leave clinicians at the mercy of where and how much states decide to allocate to each location. “I’ve heard of some hospitals and health systems in Colorado that aren’t using all they’ve got, but most don’t have nearly enough,” Dr. Wynia said. However, he noted, “some of that is inevitable. We will never get a perfect distribution of these drugs when there is such variable need and demand.”

And, according to Nicolette Louissaint, PhD, MBA, senior vice president of policy and strategic planning at the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, “we can take some comfort that the federal government is actively looking at cases from week to week and working with state and local health departments to see who needs these products, which means the process is constantly being reviewed and adjusted.”

Plus, not every positive COVID-19 case, even among immunocompromised individuals, necessarily warrants treatment. “If, for instance, an individual with cancer has a mild case of COVID-19, their provider may not deem it necessary for them to receive treatment,” Dr. Louissaint noted.

Still, given the limited and unpredictable supply, “we have had to be thoughtful about who gets these drugs,” said Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD, president of the Levine Cancer Institute, part of the 40-hospital Atrium Health system in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Raghavan said the highest priority goes to patients with hematologic malignancies, those receiving or coming off chemotherapy or experiencing myelosuppression and immune paresis, as well as those who have undergone organ transplants. Age and other comorbidities, such as diabetes or obesity, play into the lineup as well.

To further hone their priority list, the Levine Cancer Institute has implemented a cancer-centered Hospital at Home initiative. The program includes 40 oncology nurse navigators who routinely screen and score all cancer patients who test positive for COVID-19 by their symptoms and risk factors. For a time-sensitive treatment like Paxlovid, this close monitoring allows patients with COVID to access the pills within 5 days of symptom onset.

Ultimately, “the decision regarding who gets these drugs is [made] by a team to overcome any risk of personal bias, and some of it just comes down to the interface between clinical judgment and available data,” Dr. Raghavan told this news organization. “Although we’d like to have more COVID drugs available and fewer patients with COVID, we have been able to get adequate supplies for our most at-risk patients.”

Like Dr. Raghavan, Karen Bloch, MD, MPH, the medical director for the COVID Infusion Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), said the clinic has had to be highly selective about which patients would benefit most from the COVID monoclonal antibodies. For patients with cancer, her team prioritizes individuals who would be least able to develop antibodies through vaccination or natural infection – which includes patients with B cell malignancies, acute myeloid leukemia, or multiple myeloma receiving active treatment, as well as those who recently received an allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant.

“Since our criteria for treatment with therapies such as sotrovimab and Evusheld are pretty stringent, we have had sufficient supply to treat those who meet our internal ‘category 1’ predetermined criteria,” said Dr. Bloch, professor of medicine and associate division director for clinical affairs at VUMC, Nashville. “More recently, as the supply chain has begun to open up, we’ve been able to loosen our criteria for sotrovimab, though not for Evusheld yet.”

The Yale team described a similar evolution. “Initially, only a small subset of oncology patients could get these drugs,” said Osama (Sam) Abdelghany, PharmD, MHA, associate director of Oncology Pharmacy Services at Smilow Cancer Hospital. But as the caseload has diminished, Dr. Abdelghany noted, “we have been able to reach many more patients with COVID-19.”
 

An equitable system?

Dr. Wynia, who has written many reports on crisis standards of care, has spent thousands of hours delving into the ethics of allocating scarce resources during a disaster.

A core problem arises when there are too many people who need a scarce resource and no way of differentiating among them.

In response to the limited supply of COVID-19 treatments, some institutions, such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, have created a lottery system. Others, such as Johns Hopkins Medicine, have opted for first come, first served. Each strategy comes with caveats.

“First come, first served prioritization may be quicker, but it gives more well-resourced people an advantage and lends itself to people abusing the system or exacerbating existing disparities,” Dr. Wynia said.

While a lottery system may be more equitable, this strategy often comes at the price of efficiency. “The practicality of doing a lottery when you have to make a decision about whether or not to treat the patient sitting in front of you comes with its own challenges,” Dr. Wynia said.

At the University of Colorado, he explained, the health center constantly scans medical records for patients who have been diagnosed with COVID and fall into a high-risk group. That way clinicians can call or email those most likely to benefit from these drugs.

“It ends up being a bit of a first come, first served strategy,” Dr. Wynia said. “But we also do not have a huge supply coming in each week, so reaching out to the most eligible people when we have the drugs in hand means more privileged patients are less likely to game the system.”

To manage the supply of Evusheld, Timothy Kubal, MD, MBA, and colleagues also reach out to patients most likely to benefit – specifically, those who can’t mount an adequate antibody response after vaccination.

“We screen all of our patients who have been receiving anti-CD20 agents and other chemotherapy agents known to suppress antibody response,” Dr. Kubal, a medical oncologist/hematologist at the Moffitt Institute in Tampa, Florida, said in an interview. “We then test those patients for antibodies and deliver Evusheld if they have no evidence of antibodies.”

Fortunately, in the coming months, distribution of these drugs should improve significantly. Pfizer says it expects to deliver 10 million courses of Paxlovid by the end of June, and another 10 million by the end of September. More than 1 million courses of sotrovimab should be distributed by GlaxoSmithKline through the end of March. And, recently, the Biden administration announced it purchased 1.2 million courses of Evusheld from AstraZeneca.

“Every few weeks, because the COVID picture changes, the demand changes,” said Dr. Louissaint. “With vaccination rates going up and cases going down, fewer patients will need these products.”

Still, the constant barrage of supply shortages over the past 2 years – from COVID tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment early on to COVID vaccines a year later and more recently health care staff and COVID tests once again – has taken its toll.

“We have faced supply challenge after challenge and have had to be creative in each situation,” said Lisa Barbarotta, MSN, APRN, program director of Oncology Education and Clinical Practice at Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Nothing has been easy about this.”

And, Dr. Bloch cautioned, even with broader access to COVID-19 drugs on the horizon, there is still no substitute for vaccination. “Getting vaccinated is the best and first line of defense for most people,” she said.

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

In mid-November, Kevin Billingsley, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., was keeping a close eye on the new COVID variant sweeping across South Africa. Six weeks later, the Omicron variant had become the dominant strain in the U.S. – and the Yale health system was no exception.

“As we entered January, we had a breathtaking rate of infection in our hospital,” said Dr. Billingsley, who also leads clinical care at the Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Some of the newly authorized COVID agents were available but not widely enough to make a clinically meaningful impact to protect all high-risk individuals during this surge.”

That left the team at Yale with difficult decisions about who would receive these treatments and who wouldn’t.

The health system convened a COVID-19 immunocompromised working group to identify which patients should get priority access to one of the promising drugs authorized to treat the infection – the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab and antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir – or the sole available option to prevent it, Evusheld.

“Although clinically sound, none of these decisions have been easy,” Dr. Billingsley told this news organization. “We have done a lot of case-by-case reviewing and a lot of handwringing. Omicron has been a wild ride for us all, and we have been doing the best we can with limited resources.”
 

‘We’re seeing incredible variability’

The team at Yale is not alone. The restricted supply of COVID-19 treatments has led many oncologists and other experts across the U.S. to create carefully curated lists of their most vulnerable patients.

In late December, the National Institutes of Health published broad criteria to help clinicians prioritize patients most likely to benefit from these therapies. A handful of state health departments, including those in Michigan and Minnesota, established their own standards. Patients with cancer – specifically those with hematologic malignancies and receiving oncology therapies that compromise the immune system – appeared at the top of everyone’s list.

But ultimately individual decisions about who receives these drugs and how they’re allocated fell to institutions.

“Overall, what we’re seeing is incredible variability across the country, because there’s no uniform agreement on what comprises best practices on allocating scarce resources,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “There are so many people at the top of most lists, and the drugs are in such short supply, that there’s no guarantee even those in the top tier will get it.”

This news organization spoke to experts across the country about their experiences accessing these treatments during the Omicron surge and their strategies prioritizing patients with cancer.
 

Dealing with limited supply

Overall, the limited supply of COVID-19 drugs means not every patient who’s eligible to receive a treatment will get one.

A snapshot of the past 2 weeks, for instance, shows that the count of new infections hit almost 4.3 million, while distribution of the two antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab reached just over 600,000 courses.

Since receiving emergency use authorization in early December, almost 500,000 courses of the pre-exposure prophylactic agent Evusheld – which offers about 6 months of protection for immunocompromised individuals – have been distributed; however, about 7 million adults in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it.

In addition, the distribution of drugs is uneven. The federal government manages the overall distribution to states, but states then decide how to divvy up these allocations to hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers. In Ohio, for instance, the antivirals go to providers who already receive monoclonal antibodies, while in Tennessee, the supply of antiviral agents only goes to Walmart pharmacies.

This strategy, Dr. Wynia explained, can leave clinicians at the mercy of where and how much states decide to allocate to each location. “I’ve heard of some hospitals and health systems in Colorado that aren’t using all they’ve got, but most don’t have nearly enough,” Dr. Wynia said. However, he noted, “some of that is inevitable. We will never get a perfect distribution of these drugs when there is such variable need and demand.”

And, according to Nicolette Louissaint, PhD, MBA, senior vice president of policy and strategic planning at the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, “we can take some comfort that the federal government is actively looking at cases from week to week and working with state and local health departments to see who needs these products, which means the process is constantly being reviewed and adjusted.”

Plus, not every positive COVID-19 case, even among immunocompromised individuals, necessarily warrants treatment. “If, for instance, an individual with cancer has a mild case of COVID-19, their provider may not deem it necessary for them to receive treatment,” Dr. Louissaint noted.

Still, given the limited and unpredictable supply, “we have had to be thoughtful about who gets these drugs,” said Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD, president of the Levine Cancer Institute, part of the 40-hospital Atrium Health system in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Raghavan said the highest priority goes to patients with hematologic malignancies, those receiving or coming off chemotherapy or experiencing myelosuppression and immune paresis, as well as those who have undergone organ transplants. Age and other comorbidities, such as diabetes or obesity, play into the lineup as well.

To further hone their priority list, the Levine Cancer Institute has implemented a cancer-centered Hospital at Home initiative. The program includes 40 oncology nurse navigators who routinely screen and score all cancer patients who test positive for COVID-19 by their symptoms and risk factors. For a time-sensitive treatment like Paxlovid, this close monitoring allows patients with COVID to access the pills within 5 days of symptom onset.

Ultimately, “the decision regarding who gets these drugs is [made] by a team to overcome any risk of personal bias, and some of it just comes down to the interface between clinical judgment and available data,” Dr. Raghavan told this news organization. “Although we’d like to have more COVID drugs available and fewer patients with COVID, we have been able to get adequate supplies for our most at-risk patients.”

Like Dr. Raghavan, Karen Bloch, MD, MPH, the medical director for the COVID Infusion Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), said the clinic has had to be highly selective about which patients would benefit most from the COVID monoclonal antibodies. For patients with cancer, her team prioritizes individuals who would be least able to develop antibodies through vaccination or natural infection – which includes patients with B cell malignancies, acute myeloid leukemia, or multiple myeloma receiving active treatment, as well as those who recently received an allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant.

“Since our criteria for treatment with therapies such as sotrovimab and Evusheld are pretty stringent, we have had sufficient supply to treat those who meet our internal ‘category 1’ predetermined criteria,” said Dr. Bloch, professor of medicine and associate division director for clinical affairs at VUMC, Nashville. “More recently, as the supply chain has begun to open up, we’ve been able to loosen our criteria for sotrovimab, though not for Evusheld yet.”

The Yale team described a similar evolution. “Initially, only a small subset of oncology patients could get these drugs,” said Osama (Sam) Abdelghany, PharmD, MHA, associate director of Oncology Pharmacy Services at Smilow Cancer Hospital. But as the caseload has diminished, Dr. Abdelghany noted, “we have been able to reach many more patients with COVID-19.”
 

An equitable system?

Dr. Wynia, who has written many reports on crisis standards of care, has spent thousands of hours delving into the ethics of allocating scarce resources during a disaster.

A core problem arises when there are too many people who need a scarce resource and no way of differentiating among them.

In response to the limited supply of COVID-19 treatments, some institutions, such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, have created a lottery system. Others, such as Johns Hopkins Medicine, have opted for first come, first served. Each strategy comes with caveats.

“First come, first served prioritization may be quicker, but it gives more well-resourced people an advantage and lends itself to people abusing the system or exacerbating existing disparities,” Dr. Wynia said.

While a lottery system may be more equitable, this strategy often comes at the price of efficiency. “The practicality of doing a lottery when you have to make a decision about whether or not to treat the patient sitting in front of you comes with its own challenges,” Dr. Wynia said.

At the University of Colorado, he explained, the health center constantly scans medical records for patients who have been diagnosed with COVID and fall into a high-risk group. That way clinicians can call or email those most likely to benefit from these drugs.

“It ends up being a bit of a first come, first served strategy,” Dr. Wynia said. “But we also do not have a huge supply coming in each week, so reaching out to the most eligible people when we have the drugs in hand means more privileged patients are less likely to game the system.”

To manage the supply of Evusheld, Timothy Kubal, MD, MBA, and colleagues also reach out to patients most likely to benefit – specifically, those who can’t mount an adequate antibody response after vaccination.

“We screen all of our patients who have been receiving anti-CD20 agents and other chemotherapy agents known to suppress antibody response,” Dr. Kubal, a medical oncologist/hematologist at the Moffitt Institute in Tampa, Florida, said in an interview. “We then test those patients for antibodies and deliver Evusheld if they have no evidence of antibodies.”

Fortunately, in the coming months, distribution of these drugs should improve significantly. Pfizer says it expects to deliver 10 million courses of Paxlovid by the end of June, and another 10 million by the end of September. More than 1 million courses of sotrovimab should be distributed by GlaxoSmithKline through the end of March. And, recently, the Biden administration announced it purchased 1.2 million courses of Evusheld from AstraZeneca.

“Every few weeks, because the COVID picture changes, the demand changes,” said Dr. Louissaint. “With vaccination rates going up and cases going down, fewer patients will need these products.”

Still, the constant barrage of supply shortages over the past 2 years – from COVID tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment early on to COVID vaccines a year later and more recently health care staff and COVID tests once again – has taken its toll.

“We have faced supply challenge after challenge and have had to be creative in each situation,” said Lisa Barbarotta, MSN, APRN, program director of Oncology Education and Clinical Practice at Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Nothing has been easy about this.”

And, Dr. Bloch cautioned, even with broader access to COVID-19 drugs on the horizon, there is still no substitute for vaccination. “Getting vaccinated is the best and first line of defense for most people,” she said.

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

In mid-November, Kevin Billingsley, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., was keeping a close eye on the new COVID variant sweeping across South Africa. Six weeks later, the Omicron variant had become the dominant strain in the U.S. – and the Yale health system was no exception.

“As we entered January, we had a breathtaking rate of infection in our hospital,” said Dr. Billingsley, who also leads clinical care at the Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Some of the newly authorized COVID agents were available but not widely enough to make a clinically meaningful impact to protect all high-risk individuals during this surge.”

That left the team at Yale with difficult decisions about who would receive these treatments and who wouldn’t.

The health system convened a COVID-19 immunocompromised working group to identify which patients should get priority access to one of the promising drugs authorized to treat the infection – the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab and antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir – or the sole available option to prevent it, Evusheld.

“Although clinically sound, none of these decisions have been easy,” Dr. Billingsley told this news organization. “We have done a lot of case-by-case reviewing and a lot of handwringing. Omicron has been a wild ride for us all, and we have been doing the best we can with limited resources.”
 

‘We’re seeing incredible variability’

The team at Yale is not alone. The restricted supply of COVID-19 treatments has led many oncologists and other experts across the U.S. to create carefully curated lists of their most vulnerable patients.

In late December, the National Institutes of Health published broad criteria to help clinicians prioritize patients most likely to benefit from these therapies. A handful of state health departments, including those in Michigan and Minnesota, established their own standards. Patients with cancer – specifically those with hematologic malignancies and receiving oncology therapies that compromise the immune system – appeared at the top of everyone’s list.

But ultimately individual decisions about who receives these drugs and how they’re allocated fell to institutions.

“Overall, what we’re seeing is incredible variability across the country, because there’s no uniform agreement on what comprises best practices on allocating scarce resources,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “There are so many people at the top of most lists, and the drugs are in such short supply, that there’s no guarantee even those in the top tier will get it.”

This news organization spoke to experts across the country about their experiences accessing these treatments during the Omicron surge and their strategies prioritizing patients with cancer.
 

Dealing with limited supply

Overall, the limited supply of COVID-19 drugs means not every patient who’s eligible to receive a treatment will get one.

A snapshot of the past 2 weeks, for instance, shows that the count of new infections hit almost 4.3 million, while distribution of the two antiviral pills Paxlovid and molnupiravir and the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab reached just over 600,000 courses.

Since receiving emergency use authorization in early December, almost 500,000 courses of the pre-exposure prophylactic agent Evusheld – which offers about 6 months of protection for immunocompromised individuals – have been distributed; however, about 7 million adults in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it.

In addition, the distribution of drugs is uneven. The federal government manages the overall distribution to states, but states then decide how to divvy up these allocations to hospitals, pharmacies, and medical centers. In Ohio, for instance, the antivirals go to providers who already receive monoclonal antibodies, while in Tennessee, the supply of antiviral agents only goes to Walmart pharmacies.

This strategy, Dr. Wynia explained, can leave clinicians at the mercy of where and how much states decide to allocate to each location. “I’ve heard of some hospitals and health systems in Colorado that aren’t using all they’ve got, but most don’t have nearly enough,” Dr. Wynia said. However, he noted, “some of that is inevitable. We will never get a perfect distribution of these drugs when there is such variable need and demand.”

And, according to Nicolette Louissaint, PhD, MBA, senior vice president of policy and strategic planning at the Healthcare Distribution Alliance in Arlington, Virginia, “we can take some comfort that the federal government is actively looking at cases from week to week and working with state and local health departments to see who needs these products, which means the process is constantly being reviewed and adjusted.”

Plus, not every positive COVID-19 case, even among immunocompromised individuals, necessarily warrants treatment. “If, for instance, an individual with cancer has a mild case of COVID-19, their provider may not deem it necessary for them to receive treatment,” Dr. Louissaint noted.

Still, given the limited and unpredictable supply, “we have had to be thoughtful about who gets these drugs,” said Derek Raghavan, MD, PhD, president of the Levine Cancer Institute, part of the 40-hospital Atrium Health system in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Dr. Raghavan said the highest priority goes to patients with hematologic malignancies, those receiving or coming off chemotherapy or experiencing myelosuppression and immune paresis, as well as those who have undergone organ transplants. Age and other comorbidities, such as diabetes or obesity, play into the lineup as well.

To further hone their priority list, the Levine Cancer Institute has implemented a cancer-centered Hospital at Home initiative. The program includes 40 oncology nurse navigators who routinely screen and score all cancer patients who test positive for COVID-19 by their symptoms and risk factors. For a time-sensitive treatment like Paxlovid, this close monitoring allows patients with COVID to access the pills within 5 days of symptom onset.

Ultimately, “the decision regarding who gets these drugs is [made] by a team to overcome any risk of personal bias, and some of it just comes down to the interface between clinical judgment and available data,” Dr. Raghavan told this news organization. “Although we’d like to have more COVID drugs available and fewer patients with COVID, we have been able to get adequate supplies for our most at-risk patients.”

Like Dr. Raghavan, Karen Bloch, MD, MPH, the medical director for the COVID Infusion Clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), said the clinic has had to be highly selective about which patients would benefit most from the COVID monoclonal antibodies. For patients with cancer, her team prioritizes individuals who would be least able to develop antibodies through vaccination or natural infection – which includes patients with B cell malignancies, acute myeloid leukemia, or multiple myeloma receiving active treatment, as well as those who recently received an allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant.

“Since our criteria for treatment with therapies such as sotrovimab and Evusheld are pretty stringent, we have had sufficient supply to treat those who meet our internal ‘category 1’ predetermined criteria,” said Dr. Bloch, professor of medicine and associate division director for clinical affairs at VUMC, Nashville. “More recently, as the supply chain has begun to open up, we’ve been able to loosen our criteria for sotrovimab, though not for Evusheld yet.”

The Yale team described a similar evolution. “Initially, only a small subset of oncology patients could get these drugs,” said Osama (Sam) Abdelghany, PharmD, MHA, associate director of Oncology Pharmacy Services at Smilow Cancer Hospital. But as the caseload has diminished, Dr. Abdelghany noted, “we have been able to reach many more patients with COVID-19.”
 

An equitable system?

Dr. Wynia, who has written many reports on crisis standards of care, has spent thousands of hours delving into the ethics of allocating scarce resources during a disaster.

A core problem arises when there are too many people who need a scarce resource and no way of differentiating among them.

In response to the limited supply of COVID-19 treatments, some institutions, such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, have created a lottery system. Others, such as Johns Hopkins Medicine, have opted for first come, first served. Each strategy comes with caveats.

“First come, first served prioritization may be quicker, but it gives more well-resourced people an advantage and lends itself to people abusing the system or exacerbating existing disparities,” Dr. Wynia said.

While a lottery system may be more equitable, this strategy often comes at the price of efficiency. “The practicality of doing a lottery when you have to make a decision about whether or not to treat the patient sitting in front of you comes with its own challenges,” Dr. Wynia said.

At the University of Colorado, he explained, the health center constantly scans medical records for patients who have been diagnosed with COVID and fall into a high-risk group. That way clinicians can call or email those most likely to benefit from these drugs.

“It ends up being a bit of a first come, first served strategy,” Dr. Wynia said. “But we also do not have a huge supply coming in each week, so reaching out to the most eligible people when we have the drugs in hand means more privileged patients are less likely to game the system.”

To manage the supply of Evusheld, Timothy Kubal, MD, MBA, and colleagues also reach out to patients most likely to benefit – specifically, those who can’t mount an adequate antibody response after vaccination.

“We screen all of our patients who have been receiving anti-CD20 agents and other chemotherapy agents known to suppress antibody response,” Dr. Kubal, a medical oncologist/hematologist at the Moffitt Institute in Tampa, Florida, said in an interview. “We then test those patients for antibodies and deliver Evusheld if they have no evidence of antibodies.”

Fortunately, in the coming months, distribution of these drugs should improve significantly. Pfizer says it expects to deliver 10 million courses of Paxlovid by the end of June, and another 10 million by the end of September. More than 1 million courses of sotrovimab should be distributed by GlaxoSmithKline through the end of March. And, recently, the Biden administration announced it purchased 1.2 million courses of Evusheld from AstraZeneca.

“Every few weeks, because the COVID picture changes, the demand changes,” said Dr. Louissaint. “With vaccination rates going up and cases going down, fewer patients will need these products.”

Still, the constant barrage of supply shortages over the past 2 years – from COVID tests, ventilators, and personal protective equipment early on to COVID vaccines a year later and more recently health care staff and COVID tests once again – has taken its toll.

“We have faced supply challenge after challenge and have had to be creative in each situation,” said Lisa Barbarotta, MSN, APRN, program director of Oncology Education and Clinical Practice at Smilow Cancer Hospital. “Nothing has been easy about this.”

And, Dr. Bloch cautioned, even with broader access to COVID-19 drugs on the horizon, there is still no substitute for vaccination. “Getting vaccinated is the best and first line of defense for most people,” she said.

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

Since the onset of the pandemic, the role for corticosteroids (CS) as a therapy for COVID-19 has evolved. Initially, there was reluctance to use oral corticosteroids (OCS) outside of COVID-19-related sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was in keeping with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines (Metlay JP, et al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 200:e45-e67) and reflected concerns that OCS might worsen outcomes in viral pneumonias. At my hospital, the reluctance to use OCS was extended to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with early protocols advising cessation in patients with COVID-19.

In fairness, the hesitation to use ICS was short-lived and reflected attempts to provide reasonable guidance during the early pandemic data vacuum. Over time, OCS therapy has gained acceptance as a treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. On top of this, the relationship between COVID-19 and asthma has proved to be complicated. It seemed intuitive that asthmatics would fair worse in the face of a highly transmissible respiratory pathogen. Data on COVID-19 and asthma provide a mixed picture, though. It also appears that the interaction varies by phenotype (Zhu Z, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:327-329).

Improvements with OCS and the complicated interaction between COVID-19 and asthma led some to speculate that ICS, the primary treatment for asthma, may actually be protective. There is biologic plausibility to support this concept. Generally, we’ve seen a variety of immunomodulators show efficacy against moderate or severe disease. Specific to ICS, data have shown a down-regulation in COVID-19 gene expression and reduction in proteins required by the virus for cell entry. This includes a reduction in the evil, much maligned ACE-2 receptor (Peters M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:83-90).

Like much with COVID-19, the initial asthma phenotype and ICS data were observational and hypothesis- generating, at best. More recently, a series of randomized trials has tested the effects of ICS in patients with milder forms of COVID-19. The data are promising and are worth a thorough review by all physicians caring for COVID-19 outside of the hospital.

The STOIC trial (Ramakrishnan S, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:763–772) randomized 146 patients to budesonide via dry powder inhaler (DPI), 800 ug twice per day (BID), versus usual care. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, defined as presentation to acute or emergency care or need for hospitalization. There was a number of secondary outcomes designed to assess time-to-recovery, predominantly by self-report via questionnaires. The results were nothing short of spectacular. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome with a number-needed to treat (NNT) of only 8 to prevent one instance of COVID-19 deterioration. A number of the secondary outcomes reached significance, as well.

The PRINCIPLE trial, only available in preprint form (https://tinyurl.com/mr4cah7j), also randomized patients to budesonide via ICS vs usual care. PRINCIPLE is one of those cool, adaptive platform trials designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously that have gained popularity in the pandemic era. These trials include predefined criteria for success and futility that allow treatments to be added and others to be dropped. The dosage of budesonide was identical to that in STOIC, and, again, it was delivered via DPI. By design, patients were older with co-morbidities, and there were two primary outcomes. The first was a composite of hospitalization and death, and the second was time to recovery.

The PRINCIPLE preprint is only an interim analysis. There were 751 and 1,028 patients who received budesonide and usual care, respectively. Time to recovery was significantly shorter in the budesonide group, but budesonide failed to meet their prespecified criteria for reducing hospitalization/death. The authors noted that the composite outcome of hospitalization or death did not occur at the rates originally anticipated, presumably due to high vaccination rates. This may have led to type II error.

In a third trial published online in November (Clemency BM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6759), patients were randomized to 640 micrograms per day of the ICS ciclesonide. Delivery was via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for a total duration of 30 days. Unlike the STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials, this one wasn’t open label. It was blinded and placebo-controlled. The investigators found no difference in their primary outcome, time to resolution of symptoms. Ciclesonide did reduce the composite secondary outcome of ED visits or hospital admissions. The number needed to treat was 23.

Please indulge me while I overreact. It seems we’ve got a positive signal in all three. In the era of the Omnicron variant and limited health resources, a widely available therapy that curtails symptoms and prevents acute care visits and hospitalizations could have a tremendous impact. It doesn’t require administration in a clinic and, in theory, efficacy shouldn’t be affected by future mutations of the virus.

A more sober look mutes my enthusiasm. First, as the authors of the ciclesonide article note, open-label trials tracking subjective outcomes via self-assessment can be prone to bias. The ciclesonide trial was double-blinded and didn’t find a difference in time to symptom resolution, only the two open-label trials did. Second, the largest study (PRINCIPLE) didn’t show a difference in escalation of care.

Given, they defined “escalation” as hospitalization or death, and vaccines and patient selection (enrolled only outpatients with mild disease) made proving a statistical reduction difficult. However, in the text they state there wasn’t an improvement in “health care services use” either. In essence, the largest trial showed no change in escalation of care, and the trial with the best design did not show reduction in symptoms.

Although three randomized trials are enough for the inevitable meta-analysis that’ll be published soon; don’t expect it to shed much light. Combining data won’t be particularly helpful because the PRINCIPLE trial is larger than the other two combined, so its results will dominate any statistical analysis of combined data. Not to worry though – there are several more ICS COVID-19 trials underway (NCT04355637, NCT04331054, NCT04193878, NCT04330586, NCT04331054, NCT04331470, NCT04355637, NCT04356495, and NCT04381364). Providers will have to decide for themselves whether what we have so far is sufficient to change practice.

Dr. Holley is Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship; and Associate Professor of Medicine USU, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He also serves as Section Editor for Pulmonary Perspectives^®.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the role for corticosteroids (CS) as a therapy for COVID-19 has evolved. Initially, there was reluctance to use oral corticosteroids (OCS) outside of COVID-19-related sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was in keeping with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines (Metlay JP, et al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 200:e45-e67) and reflected concerns that OCS might worsen outcomes in viral pneumonias. At my hospital, the reluctance to use OCS was extended to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with early protocols advising cessation in patients with COVID-19.

In fairness, the hesitation to use ICS was short-lived and reflected attempts to provide reasonable guidance during the early pandemic data vacuum. Over time, OCS therapy has gained acceptance as a treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. On top of this, the relationship between COVID-19 and asthma has proved to be complicated. It seemed intuitive that asthmatics would fair worse in the face of a highly transmissible respiratory pathogen. Data on COVID-19 and asthma provide a mixed picture, though. It also appears that the interaction varies by phenotype (Zhu Z, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:327-329).

Improvements with OCS and the complicated interaction between COVID-19 and asthma led some to speculate that ICS, the primary treatment for asthma, may actually be protective. There is biologic plausibility to support this concept. Generally, we’ve seen a variety of immunomodulators show efficacy against moderate or severe disease. Specific to ICS, data have shown a down-regulation in COVID-19 gene expression and reduction in proteins required by the virus for cell entry. This includes a reduction in the evil, much maligned ACE-2 receptor (Peters M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:83-90).

Like much with COVID-19, the initial asthma phenotype and ICS data were observational and hypothesis- generating, at best. More recently, a series of randomized trials has tested the effects of ICS in patients with milder forms of COVID-19. The data are promising and are worth a thorough review by all physicians caring for COVID-19 outside of the hospital.

The STOIC trial (Ramakrishnan S, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:763–772) randomized 146 patients to budesonide via dry powder inhaler (DPI), 800 ug twice per day (BID), versus usual care. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, defined as presentation to acute or emergency care or need for hospitalization. There was a number of secondary outcomes designed to assess time-to-recovery, predominantly by self-report via questionnaires. The results were nothing short of spectacular. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome with a number-needed to treat (NNT) of only 8 to prevent one instance of COVID-19 deterioration. A number of the secondary outcomes reached significance, as well.

The PRINCIPLE trial, only available in preprint form (https://tinyurl.com/mr4cah7j), also randomized patients to budesonide via ICS vs usual care. PRINCIPLE is one of those cool, adaptive platform trials designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously that have gained popularity in the pandemic era. These trials include predefined criteria for success and futility that allow treatments to be added and others to be dropped. The dosage of budesonide was identical to that in STOIC, and, again, it was delivered via DPI. By design, patients were older with co-morbidities, and there were two primary outcomes. The first was a composite of hospitalization and death, and the second was time to recovery.

The PRINCIPLE preprint is only an interim analysis. There were 751 and 1,028 patients who received budesonide and usual care, respectively. Time to recovery was significantly shorter in the budesonide group, but budesonide failed to meet their prespecified criteria for reducing hospitalization/death. The authors noted that the composite outcome of hospitalization or death did not occur at the rates originally anticipated, presumably due to high vaccination rates. This may have led to type II error.

In a third trial published online in November (Clemency BM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6759), patients were randomized to 640 micrograms per day of the ICS ciclesonide. Delivery was via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for a total duration of 30 days. Unlike the STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials, this one wasn’t open label. It was blinded and placebo-controlled. The investigators found no difference in their primary outcome, time to resolution of symptoms. Ciclesonide did reduce the composite secondary outcome of ED visits or hospital admissions. The number needed to treat was 23.

Please indulge me while I overreact. It seems we’ve got a positive signal in all three. In the era of the Omnicron variant and limited health resources, a widely available therapy that curtails symptoms and prevents acute care visits and hospitalizations could have a tremendous impact. It doesn’t require administration in a clinic and, in theory, efficacy shouldn’t be affected by future mutations of the virus.

A more sober look mutes my enthusiasm. First, as the authors of the ciclesonide article note, open-label trials tracking subjective outcomes via self-assessment can be prone to bias. The ciclesonide trial was double-blinded and didn’t find a difference in time to symptom resolution, only the two open-label trials did. Second, the largest study (PRINCIPLE) didn’t show a difference in escalation of care.

Given, they defined “escalation” as hospitalization or death, and vaccines and patient selection (enrolled only outpatients with mild disease) made proving a statistical reduction difficult. However, in the text they state there wasn’t an improvement in “health care services use” either. In essence, the largest trial showed no change in escalation of care, and the trial with the best design did not show reduction in symptoms.

Although three randomized trials are enough for the inevitable meta-analysis that’ll be published soon; don’t expect it to shed much light. Combining data won’t be particularly helpful because the PRINCIPLE trial is larger than the other two combined, so its results will dominate any statistical analysis of combined data. Not to worry though – there are several more ICS COVID-19 trials underway (NCT04355637, NCT04331054, NCT04193878, NCT04330586, NCT04331054, NCT04331470, NCT04355637, NCT04356495, and NCT04381364). Providers will have to decide for themselves whether what we have so far is sufficient to change practice.

Dr. Holley is Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship; and Associate Professor of Medicine USU, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He also serves as Section Editor for Pulmonary Perspectives^®.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the role for corticosteroids (CS) as a therapy for COVID-19 has evolved. Initially, there was reluctance to use oral corticosteroids (OCS) outside of COVID-19-related sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was in keeping with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines (Metlay JP, et al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 200:e45-e67) and reflected concerns that OCS might worsen outcomes in viral pneumonias. At my hospital, the reluctance to use OCS was extended to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with early protocols advising cessation in patients with COVID-19.

In fairness, the hesitation to use ICS was short-lived and reflected attempts to provide reasonable guidance during the early pandemic data vacuum. Over time, OCS therapy has gained acceptance as a treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. On top of this, the relationship between COVID-19 and asthma has proved to be complicated. It seemed intuitive that asthmatics would fair worse in the face of a highly transmissible respiratory pathogen. Data on COVID-19 and asthma provide a mixed picture, though. It also appears that the interaction varies by phenotype (Zhu Z, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:327-329).

Improvements with OCS and the complicated interaction between COVID-19 and asthma led some to speculate that ICS, the primary treatment for asthma, may actually be protective. There is biologic plausibility to support this concept. Generally, we’ve seen a variety of immunomodulators show efficacy against moderate or severe disease. Specific to ICS, data have shown a down-regulation in COVID-19 gene expression and reduction in proteins required by the virus for cell entry. This includes a reduction in the evil, much maligned ACE-2 receptor (Peters M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:83-90).

Like much with COVID-19, the initial asthma phenotype and ICS data were observational and hypothesis- generating, at best. More recently, a series of randomized trials has tested the effects of ICS in patients with milder forms of COVID-19. The data are promising and are worth a thorough review by all physicians caring for COVID-19 outside of the hospital.

The STOIC trial (Ramakrishnan S, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:763–772) randomized 146 patients to budesonide via dry powder inhaler (DPI), 800 ug twice per day (BID), versus usual care. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, defined as presentation to acute or emergency care or need for hospitalization. There was a number of secondary outcomes designed to assess time-to-recovery, predominantly by self-report via questionnaires. The results were nothing short of spectacular. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome with a number-needed to treat (NNT) of only 8 to prevent one instance of COVID-19 deterioration. A number of the secondary outcomes reached significance, as well.

The PRINCIPLE trial, only available in preprint form (https://tinyurl.com/mr4cah7j), also randomized patients to budesonide via ICS vs usual care. PRINCIPLE is one of those cool, adaptive platform trials designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously that have gained popularity in the pandemic era. These trials include predefined criteria for success and futility that allow treatments to be added and others to be dropped. The dosage of budesonide was identical to that in STOIC, and, again, it was delivered via DPI. By design, patients were older with co-morbidities, and there were two primary outcomes. The first was a composite of hospitalization and death, and the second was time to recovery.

The PRINCIPLE preprint is only an interim analysis. There were 751 and 1,028 patients who received budesonide and usual care, respectively. Time to recovery was significantly shorter in the budesonide group, but budesonide failed to meet their prespecified criteria for reducing hospitalization/death. The authors noted that the composite outcome of hospitalization or death did not occur at the rates originally anticipated, presumably due to high vaccination rates. This may have led to type II error.

In a third trial published online in November (Clemency BM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6759), patients were randomized to 640 micrograms per day of the ICS ciclesonide. Delivery was via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for a total duration of 30 days. Unlike the STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials, this one wasn’t open label. It was blinded and placebo-controlled. The investigators found no difference in their primary outcome, time to resolution of symptoms. Ciclesonide did reduce the composite secondary outcome of ED visits or hospital admissions. The number needed to treat was 23.

Please indulge me while I overreact. It seems we’ve got a positive signal in all three. In the era of the Omnicron variant and limited health resources, a widely available therapy that curtails symptoms and prevents acute care visits and hospitalizations could have a tremendous impact. It doesn’t require administration in a clinic and, in theory, efficacy shouldn’t be affected by future mutations of the virus.

A more sober look mutes my enthusiasm. First, as the authors of the ciclesonide article note, open-label trials tracking subjective outcomes via self-assessment can be prone to bias. The ciclesonide trial was double-blinded and didn’t find a difference in time to symptom resolution, only the two open-label trials did. Second, the largest study (PRINCIPLE) didn’t show a difference in escalation of care.

Given, they defined “escalation” as hospitalization or death, and vaccines and patient selection (enrolled only outpatients with mild disease) made proving a statistical reduction difficult. However, in the text they state there wasn’t an improvement in “health care services use” either. In essence, the largest trial showed no change in escalation of care, and the trial with the best design did not show reduction in symptoms.

Although three randomized trials are enough for the inevitable meta-analysis that’ll be published soon; don’t expect it to shed much light. Combining data won’t be particularly helpful because the PRINCIPLE trial is larger than the other two combined, so its results will dominate any statistical analysis of combined data. Not to worry though – there are several more ICS COVID-19 trials underway (NCT04355637, NCT04331054, NCT04193878, NCT04330586, NCT04331054, NCT04331470, NCT04355637, NCT04356495, and NCT04381364). Providers will have to decide for themselves whether what we have so far is sufficient to change practice.

Dr. Holley is Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship; and Associate Professor of Medicine USU, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He also serves as Section Editor for Pulmonary Perspectives^®.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

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

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

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

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

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

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

A small study of deceased nonvaccinated men who died of COVID-19 complications suggests the testes may be a sanctuary for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, raising questions about potential consequences for reproductive health among those infected.

The study, published online Feb. 8 on the preprint server MedRxiv, found that “patients who become critically ill exhibit severe damages and may harbor the active virus in testes,” which can “serve as a viral sanctuary.”

Guilherme M.J. Costa, PhD, a professor at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, led the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“A critical point of this article is that the virus was active in the patient’s testis after a long period of infection, indicating that the testis is able to maintain the viable virus for extended periods. It happens for many kinds of viruses in this genital organ,” Dr. Costa said in an interview.

Brian Keith McNeil, MD, vice-chair, department of urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York, told this news organization that the topic of COVID-19 and fertility has been discussed but data are sparse on the subject.

“The question this raises is whether or not COVID can live in the testes, and based on this it seems it can,” he said, adding that it also raises the question of whether COVID-19 could be transmitted through semen. “It leads one to wonder whether this could have a long-term impact on fertility in men and women.”

The authors wrote that deep testicular evaluation of patients who have been infected with COVID-19 is critical because the testes have one of the highest expressions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which play a large role in entrance of the virus into cells.

“A direct influence of SARS-CoV-2 in testicular cells might deregulate ACE2, elevating the levels of angiotensin II, a potent pro-inflammatory and angiogenic peptide,” the authors wrote.
 

Sperm-producing cells infected

In 2021, the researchers enrolled 11 male patients deceased from COVID-19 complications; none had received a vaccine. Infection was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed during their hospital stay. All 11 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe pulmonary symptoms.

All but one of the patients had children and none had scrotal symptoms or complaints during their time in the hospital. Their clinical histories revealed no testicular disorders.

Dr. Costa said they found that detecting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in testes is difficult in a conventional RT-PCR test.

Therefore, “We modified the protocol of the RT-PCR and used nanosensors. We observed that SARS-CoV-2 has a huge tropism for the testes in this context,” he said.

He said the team performed stainings and “discovered that macrophages and germ cells are highly infected.”

That’s important, he said, because an immune cell, which is supposed to fight the virus, is infected in the tissue. Also, the germ cell, responsible for sperm production, is infected.

“This reopens the worries about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, as other authors mentioned,” he said.
 

New findings

The team also found that the testes are a good place for viral replication.

The authors say they are the first to show:

• The longer the severe condition, the lower the number of surviving germ cells.
• There was fluctuation in several essential testicular genes.
• The intratesticular testosterone levels are 30 times reduced in the testes of COVID-19 patients.

The control group was composed of six patients who had undergone testicle removal after prostate cancer was suspected. Collection of both testicles from the test group was performed within 3 hours of death after a family member signed an informed consent document.

Recent research on semen demonstrates that patients who recovered from COVID-19 reestablish their sperm quality after 3 months of infection.

That study, in Fertility and Sterility, found that sperm quality was initially reduced for months in some men after recovery from COVID-19.

The team studied semen samples from 120 Belgian men (mean age, 35 years) at an average 52 days after their last COVID-19 symptoms. The semen was not found to be infectious.

But among 35 men who provided samples within a month after infection, reductions in sperm motility were evident in 60% and sperm counts were reduced in 37%, according to the report.
 

Testicular damage

The results [of the Costa et al. paper] emphasize the importance of testicular damage in severe COVID-19,” Rafael Kroon Campos, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of microbiology & immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said in an interview.

He noted that other viruses have also been shown to infect or otherwise cause testicular damage or orchitis, such as Zika, Ebola, and the closely related SARS-CoV-1. Sexual transmission has been documented for Zika and Ebola viruses.

Dr. Campos said with SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear whether sexual transmission plays a role.

“Some reports found evidence of viral RNA in semen, but these were rare occurrences. The study by Costa and colleagues used a combination of sensitive techniques and they were able to detect a small amount of viral RNA and viral protein in the testicular tissue of the deceased patients, as well as show viral factories indicating replication of the virus by electron microscopy,” he said.

Dr. Campos said the findings are particularly important and concerning because of the large number of severe cases of COVID-19.

“It is critical to continue to investigate the impact of the disease in testes, including the impact of different variants of concern on testicular damage,” he said.

Dr. McNeil and Dr. Campos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small study of deceased nonvaccinated men who died of COVID-19 complications suggests the testes may be a sanctuary for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, raising questions about potential consequences for reproductive health among those infected.

The study, published online Feb. 8 on the preprint server MedRxiv, found that “patients who become critically ill exhibit severe damages and may harbor the active virus in testes,” which can “serve as a viral sanctuary.”

Guilherme M.J. Costa, PhD, a professor at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, led the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“A critical point of this article is that the virus was active in the patient’s testis after a long period of infection, indicating that the testis is able to maintain the viable virus for extended periods. It happens for many kinds of viruses in this genital organ,” Dr. Costa said in an interview.

Brian Keith McNeil, MD, vice-chair, department of urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York, told this news organization that the topic of COVID-19 and fertility has been discussed but data are sparse on the subject.

“The question this raises is whether or not COVID can live in the testes, and based on this it seems it can,” he said, adding that it also raises the question of whether COVID-19 could be transmitted through semen. “It leads one to wonder whether this could have a long-term impact on fertility in men and women.”

The authors wrote that deep testicular evaluation of patients who have been infected with COVID-19 is critical because the testes have one of the highest expressions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which play a large role in entrance of the virus into cells.

“A direct influence of SARS-CoV-2 in testicular cells might deregulate ACE2, elevating the levels of angiotensin II, a potent pro-inflammatory and angiogenic peptide,” the authors wrote.
 

Sperm-producing cells infected

In 2021, the researchers enrolled 11 male patients deceased from COVID-19 complications; none had received a vaccine. Infection was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed during their hospital stay. All 11 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe pulmonary symptoms.

All but one of the patients had children and none had scrotal symptoms or complaints during their time in the hospital. Their clinical histories revealed no testicular disorders.

Dr. Costa said they found that detecting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in testes is difficult in a conventional RT-PCR test.

Therefore, “We modified the protocol of the RT-PCR and used nanosensors. We observed that SARS-CoV-2 has a huge tropism for the testes in this context,” he said.

He said the team performed stainings and “discovered that macrophages and germ cells are highly infected.”

That’s important, he said, because an immune cell, which is supposed to fight the virus, is infected in the tissue. Also, the germ cell, responsible for sperm production, is infected.

“This reopens the worries about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, as other authors mentioned,” he said.
 

New findings

The team also found that the testes are a good place for viral replication.

The authors say they are the first to show:

• The longer the severe condition, the lower the number of surviving germ cells.
• There was fluctuation in several essential testicular genes.
• The intratesticular testosterone levels are 30 times reduced in the testes of COVID-19 patients.

The control group was composed of six patients who had undergone testicle removal after prostate cancer was suspected. Collection of both testicles from the test group was performed within 3 hours of death after a family member signed an informed consent document.

Recent research on semen demonstrates that patients who recovered from COVID-19 reestablish their sperm quality after 3 months of infection.

That study, in Fertility and Sterility, found that sperm quality was initially reduced for months in some men after recovery from COVID-19.

The team studied semen samples from 120 Belgian men (mean age, 35 years) at an average 52 days after their last COVID-19 symptoms. The semen was not found to be infectious.

But among 35 men who provided samples within a month after infection, reductions in sperm motility were evident in 60% and sperm counts were reduced in 37%, according to the report.
 

Testicular damage

The results [of the Costa et al. paper] emphasize the importance of testicular damage in severe COVID-19,” Rafael Kroon Campos, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of microbiology & immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said in an interview.

He noted that other viruses have also been shown to infect or otherwise cause testicular damage or orchitis, such as Zika, Ebola, and the closely related SARS-CoV-1. Sexual transmission has been documented for Zika and Ebola viruses.

Dr. Campos said with SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear whether sexual transmission plays a role.

“Some reports found evidence of viral RNA in semen, but these were rare occurrences. The study by Costa and colleagues used a combination of sensitive techniques and they were able to detect a small amount of viral RNA and viral protein in the testicular tissue of the deceased patients, as well as show viral factories indicating replication of the virus by electron microscopy,” he said.

Dr. Campos said the findings are particularly important and concerning because of the large number of severe cases of COVID-19.

“It is critical to continue to investigate the impact of the disease in testes, including the impact of different variants of concern on testicular damage,” he said.

Dr. McNeil and Dr. Campos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small study of deceased nonvaccinated men who died of COVID-19 complications suggests the testes may be a sanctuary for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, raising questions about potential consequences for reproductive health among those infected.

The study, published online Feb. 8 on the preprint server MedRxiv, found that “patients who become critically ill exhibit severe damages and may harbor the active virus in testes,” which can “serve as a viral sanctuary.”

Guilherme M.J. Costa, PhD, a professor at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, led the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“A critical point of this article is that the virus was active in the patient’s testis after a long period of infection, indicating that the testis is able to maintain the viable virus for extended periods. It happens for many kinds of viruses in this genital organ,” Dr. Costa said in an interview.

Brian Keith McNeil, MD, vice-chair, department of urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York, told this news organization that the topic of COVID-19 and fertility has been discussed but data are sparse on the subject.

“The question this raises is whether or not COVID can live in the testes, and based on this it seems it can,” he said, adding that it also raises the question of whether COVID-19 could be transmitted through semen. “It leads one to wonder whether this could have a long-term impact on fertility in men and women.”

The authors wrote that deep testicular evaluation of patients who have been infected with COVID-19 is critical because the testes have one of the highest expressions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which play a large role in entrance of the virus into cells.

“A direct influence of SARS-CoV-2 in testicular cells might deregulate ACE2, elevating the levels of angiotensin II, a potent pro-inflammatory and angiogenic peptide,” the authors wrote.
 

Sperm-producing cells infected

In 2021, the researchers enrolled 11 male patients deceased from COVID-19 complications; none had received a vaccine. Infection was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed during their hospital stay. All 11 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe pulmonary symptoms.

All but one of the patients had children and none had scrotal symptoms or complaints during their time in the hospital. Their clinical histories revealed no testicular disorders.

Dr. Costa said they found that detecting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in testes is difficult in a conventional RT-PCR test.

Therefore, “We modified the protocol of the RT-PCR and used nanosensors. We observed that SARS-CoV-2 has a huge tropism for the testes in this context,” he said.

He said the team performed stainings and “discovered that macrophages and germ cells are highly infected.”

That’s important, he said, because an immune cell, which is supposed to fight the virus, is infected in the tissue. Also, the germ cell, responsible for sperm production, is infected.

“This reopens the worries about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, as other authors mentioned,” he said.
 

New findings

The team also found that the testes are a good place for viral replication.

The authors say they are the first to show:

• The longer the severe condition, the lower the number of surviving germ cells.
• There was fluctuation in several essential testicular genes.
• The intratesticular testosterone levels are 30 times reduced in the testes of COVID-19 patients.

The control group was composed of six patients who had undergone testicle removal after prostate cancer was suspected. Collection of both testicles from the test group was performed within 3 hours of death after a family member signed an informed consent document.

Recent research on semen demonstrates that patients who recovered from COVID-19 reestablish their sperm quality after 3 months of infection.

That study, in Fertility and Sterility, found that sperm quality was initially reduced for months in some men after recovery from COVID-19.

The team studied semen samples from 120 Belgian men (mean age, 35 years) at an average 52 days after their last COVID-19 symptoms. The semen was not found to be infectious.

But among 35 men who provided samples within a month after infection, reductions in sperm motility were evident in 60% and sperm counts were reduced in 37%, according to the report.
 

Testicular damage

The results [of the Costa et al. paper] emphasize the importance of testicular damage in severe COVID-19,” Rafael Kroon Campos, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of microbiology & immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said in an interview.

He noted that other viruses have also been shown to infect or otherwise cause testicular damage or orchitis, such as Zika, Ebola, and the closely related SARS-CoV-1. Sexual transmission has been documented for Zika and Ebola viruses.

Dr. Campos said with SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear whether sexual transmission plays a role.

“Some reports found evidence of viral RNA in semen, but these were rare occurrences. The study by Costa and colleagues used a combination of sensitive techniques and they were able to detect a small amount of viral RNA and viral protein in the testicular tissue of the deceased patients, as well as show viral factories indicating replication of the virus by electron microscopy,” he said.

Dr. Campos said the findings are particularly important and concerning because of the large number of severe cases of COVID-19.

“It is critical to continue to investigate the impact of the disease in testes, including the impact of different variants of concern on testicular damage,” he said.

Dr. McNeil and Dr. Campos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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